Shadowrun
Shadowrun Missions Living Campaign => Living Campaign Discussion => Topic started by: Jayde Moon on <07-16-18/1727:51>
-
Carrying on with community feedback for the newest version of the SRM FAQ:
Please post your comments, ideas, kudos, gripes, offers of fealty, etc below!
-
Woo!
The addition of the 4th general rule was a very pleasant surprise.
"Sigh. Why did you build a character that hits 50 initiative..."
Also great to see game relevant ratings for Neo-Tokyo contacts!
-
Can we get this in the FAQ until it's officially errata-ed?
https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=27576.msg501742#msg501742
:D
-
Slightly disappointed that exactly how Riggers use Gunnery wasn't addressed yet
-
Slightly disappointed that exactly how Riggers use Gunnery wasn't addressed yet
Here you go:
which attribute does a Rigger use to shoot if jumped in? Agility in ALL cases UNLESS there is a Sensor Lock, in which case it becomes Logic.
btw, the above also match up with all the rules and examples in core, namely:
Manual = Agility (SR5 p. 183)
Drone = Agility (SR5 p. 238)
Vehicle = Logic (SR5 p. 183)
Sensor = Logic (SR5 p. 184)
-
It's still rubbish, since it ignores the REASON Agility is used, but it is a ruling and also a ruling you immediately tried to get in the full errata. So not sure why you'd think there's no ruling.
-
Here you go:
which attribute does a Rigger use to shoot if jumped in? Agility in ALL cases UNLESS there is a Sensor Lock, in which case it becomes Logic.
I'm very aware of that statement but "that" didn't make it into the Combined FAQ 1.1
-
That's because it felt like the errata team were close to issuing their own clarification.
-
This is a question that came up discussing with another SRM GM, and we couldn't agree on an answer.
Can you burn your last point of Edge, from 1 down to 0? And if so what are the consequences? Do you have to immediately rebuy it (and go into karma debt if necessary), is it just not possible, or is having 0 Edge perfectly fine?
-
Good question. I'd say yes, you can burn a point of Edge even if you only have one, but your next 5 karma are automatically committed to buying it back.
-
Well there is actually precedence for the idea that you can't burn edge down to 0 in Splintered State.
SPOILER: Seth Dietrich has invoked Hand of God several times prior to his introduction, reducing his Edge from 6 to 1, and then he is killed in front of the PCs. That implies that while he has burned Edges already, this last time he can't. /END SPOILER
For the purposes of Missions, I would say allowing PCs to immediately spend 10 karma to raise Edge from 1 to 2 so that they can burn it would be acceptable. To me, 5 karma seems like a very inexpensive cost for the "I don't die" button.
-
There is no rule that indicates you can't have zero edge. There are arguments for and against, but most feel fairly interpretive, so barring a rule, we don't take issue with it at Missions.
-
I'm very aware of that statement but "that" didn't make it into the Combined FAQ 1.1
Fair enough :)
But (at least to me) it make perfect sense to use the same attribute, skill and limit no matter if you are using manual operation, remote operation or jumped in.
Or, as the book puts it; The dice pool of any test you make using this action uses the rating of the appropriate skill and attribute you would use if you were performing the action normally.
Piloting is using Reaction. Piloting is linked to Reaction.
Gunnery is using Agility. Gunnery is linked to Agility.
Perception is using Intuition. Perception is linked to Intuition.
To the above there are basically only two exceptions;
1. Vehicle (not drone) remote operated weapon systems use Logic (p. 183)
2. Sensor attacks use Logic and [Sensor] (p. 184).
Will be interesting to see what the Errata team comes up with.
-
1. Vehicle (not drone) remote operated weapon systems use Logic (p. 183)
Where does that distinction come from, I don't remember Gunnery saying that remote operation is only applying to Vehicles but not drones. (Drones are a type of vehicle btw)
-
Where does that distinction come from, I don't remember Gunnery saying that remote operation is only applying to Vehicles ...
SR5 p. 183 Gunnery
Vehicle-mounted weapons are fired using ... Gunnery + Logic [Accuracy] for remote operated systems.
(Compare this with the example on p. 238)
SR5 p. 238 Control Device
firing a drone-mounted weapon at a target requires a Gunnery + Agility test.
(Drones are a type of vehicle btw)
Agreed, but SR5 seem to make a clear distinction between Drones and Vehicles. It is even more apparent in Rigger 5.0, but even the Gunnery chapter in question on p. 183 is divided between "Gunnery" and "Drone Gunnery".
This is the general rule structure in SR5;
1. They make a blanket statement
2. They list all exceptions to the blanket statement
1. Gunnery use Agility
2a. Vehicle-mounted weapons are fired using Gunnery + Logic [Accuracy] for remote operated systems.
2b. During Sensor Attacks the attacker rolls Gunnery + Logic [Sensor].
If Drone Gunnery is not supposed to use Agility then the "Drone Gunnery" chapter need to mention this.
Yes, it would have made things more clear if the book would have reinforced the fact that Drone Gunnery doesn't change this (and hopefully this is what the Errata team will clarify), but since it is not an exception to the blanket statement it will also not contradict anything as written.
Having said that, they actually do give an example on p. 238: firing a drone-mounted weapon at a target requires a Gunnery + Agility test.
If you read the rules as if drone-mounted weapons is not an exception to the blanket statement and indeed use Agility (except for sensor attacks) then you will not find any contradicting rules or examples. This is the only reading that is valid with how the rules and examples are currently written.
If you read rules as vehicle-mounted weapons also include drone-mounted weapons and that drone-mounted weapons is included in the exception which change the attribute from Agility to Logic then you will find contradicting rules or examples. This reading is not valid with how the rules and examples are currently written (at least not without an errata).
-
The only example that contradicts Logic for remote operation as pertaining specifically to drones is a mention in a completely unrelated rule (command device). The rules for drones and riggers never points to this rule.
The idea that there is a "blanket rule" that Gunnery is always Agility-based is inherently flawed. It is an Agility-linked skill, but the rules are quite clear that that does not mean you always use that attribute. There are many examples of skills that don't use their linked attribute, Computers and Gymnastics for example have situations where you never use the linked attributes (Matrix Perception and Climbing respectively).
Saying that the example in Command Device is a proof of anything would be like saying the rule for area-effect defense penalty is proof of a rule change for grenades.
-
Just, FYI, there's a thread where this is being hashed out. THIS thread is for discussion of what made it into the SRM FAQ, not what (as Lewis Greywulf pointed out) didn't.
Please keep it 'on topic' thanks!
-
I’m playing a technomancer and noticed something when reviewing the matrix rules for noise in SR5 core.
Per Pg 421 under wireless bonus it notes that if there is a noise rating higher than an items device rating the item loses its wireless functionality.
Per the SRM FAQ:
“Is it possible to run a Direct Connection between Device A (wireless off) and Device B (wireless on) and still receive Wireless Bonuses on Device A?
No. An individual item must be wirelessly enabled and have access to the Matrix to gain the wireless bonus.”
This implies that linking something to your PAN isn’t good enough for it to inherit noise reduction or gain wireless bonuses. (Please correct me if I’m wrong).
Also on page 421 the Device Rating chart it notes that normal cyber ware (And Residential security devices, standard personal electronics, and vehicles) are DR 2, and alphaware is DR 3. RAW this means that no one in neotokyo has wireless functionality on their standard vehicles, consumer electronics, cyberware, or home security system. Since you can’t install common cyber programs on commlinks (such as signal scrub for that -2 noise) or use your noise reduction for items on your pan (seeing how noise > device rating turns off wireless and you cannot receive a wireless bonus without wireless on)how does society function?
Unrelated: For the love of all things holy why can’t we install “common” cyber programs on commlinks (at least it’s not possible per hero lab, please correct me if I’m wrong)
-
Because Cyberprograms are only for Decks and RCCs. You want Apps for Commlinks.
-
Unrelated: For the love of all things holy why can’t we install “common” cyber programs on commlinks (at least it’s not possible per hero lab, please correct me if I’m wrong)
It's a Hero Lab issue. I happen to use Chummer for my character sheets, and it very much supports throwing Signal Scrub and Browse on all my commlinks.
Because Cyberprograms are only for Decks and RCCs. You want Apps for Commlinks.
Citation?
I'm not finding anything that says programs can't run on Commlinks. Certain ones should perhaps not work, but then again there's nothing I'm seeing in the rules of Shadowrun nor mathematics saying the +1 Attack from the Decryption Hacking program can't stack with a Commlink or RCC's 0 Attack value. 0+1=1 afterall.
EDIT: I'm a silly. I just realized you must have been talking about a Hero Lab fix.
EDIT EDIT: Nope, looks like an actual wrinkle in the rules to discuss.
-
A commlink is combination computer, smartphone,
media player, passport, wallet, credit card, Matrix browser,
chip reader, GPS navigator, digital camera, and portable
gaming device. And possibly a few other things, if
you’ve got a really nice one. It’s got all of the necessary
software already loaded, but unlike a cyberdeck it has no
space for cyberprograms or other hacking tools.
-
That's really interesting. Because it's directly contradicted on the following pages in the "Living with a Commlink" section right after that passage:
So where do you store all of the things you want to
keep? Pictures from your Aunt Edna’s wedding, credit
information, your SIN, every book and movie you’ve
bought, all the programs you might want to run—all of
it fits on your commlink (or cyberdeck if you prefer). In
fact, every device on the Matrix has a massive amount
of storage space, unthinkable amounts by early 21st
century standards.
-
That's not a contradiction. That's simply confusing programs for [Cyber]Programs. It's confusing terminology, but not a contradiction, and it's a fact the first mention of Cyberprograms in the book is that they can't be run on commlinks. Commlinks can run some kinds of software, but Cyberprograms are designed for Cyberdecks, just like Data Trails enforces with their talk about the use of Common Cyberprograms. If you want something useful on a commlink, get Apps.
-
I look forward to reminding everyone that any commlink that costs less than $5,000 is currently offline whenever we’re in a commercial zone of neotokyo then.
-
Probably copy pasta from 4th. But the intent is clear no programs for commlinks
-
There's opinions on 'Wireless functionality means wireless bonus functionality', which has as downside that Jammers wouldn't actually do what the book says they can do, and the example Noise ratings in the book are controversial. If we follow Chicago rules, the rules are 'if the Scene doesn't state the Noise, it's the default for the area' which for Chicago was 2 inside the walls and 0 outside. Anyone who GMed NT Missions know what the default Noise ratings are?
-
The default noise rating in NT is 2, which means the wireless bonus on all drones, vehicles, smart links, and standard grade cyber ware are all non-functional
-
Huh? Since when do Drones, Vehicles, Smart Links and Standard Cyberware have Device Rating 1?
-
Ah just noticed greater than, not greater than or equal to. So if you hit anything that’s noise rating 3 those things turn off. (Aka 1 hit on EW to create noise)
-
There's no point really in discussing the effects of Noise right now... errata is supposed to be coming soon that re-addresses how noise/wireless/jamming works.
Of course I hope they're on track with getting that errata out on time... Neo-Tokyo begins this Saturday...
-
Ah just noticed greater than, not greater than or equal to. So if you hit anything that’s noise rating 3 those things turn off. (Aka 1 hit on EW to create noise)
Except Drones. There are 3 places in Core listing Drone DR, that one table says 2, another page says 3, and Rigger section says Pilot which for almost all equals 3. And yes, that's the consequence of not using Noise reduction.
-
Wouldn’t that imply that noise reduction is inherited by devices slaved to a master? Is that a special aspect of the noise reduction on RCC’s or does a riggers ear antennas and extra datajack also help cut noise between them and their drones (implying noise reduction applied to everything in your PAN)
-
Question about Licensing Spell Formulae in SRM (pg 84 of v1.1)
Is a License for a Spell Formula a license for the materials necessary to learn a spell, or for the use of the spell?
Are the Spell Formula Licenses categorical or specific? E.G. If a Mage has a Licence for Combat Spell Formula, does he need one per spell or does one License cover the whole category of spell formulae?
-
Wouldn’t that imply that noise reduction is inherited by devices slaved to a master? Is that a special aspect of the noise reduction on RCC’s or does a riggers ear antennas and extra datajack also help cut noise between them and their drones (implying noise reduction applied to everything in your PAN)
That is an age old question that remains unanswered.
It doesn't make sense that a signal in a Noise free zone can be "scrubbed" in any way to be better received on the other end that is in a high Noise area.
On the other hand, it appears that the RAI (although not the RAW) is that all Noise reduction is sort of a collective pool that applies not only to the area it is physically in, but also to the ends of all communications regardless of where they are.
Then you get the crazy things like you mentioned, Antennae that aren't actually in use unless the signal is looped back from the Datajack to the Antennae then out to the commlink... And then just how that Noise Reduction is supposed to help the drone that is on the other side of a RCC connection...
-
Kill Code p. 92 the Great Form Sprite power Mangler, may want to specify what happens to the devices slaved to a Host that goes offline. Ditto any Personas inside. File Icon's I would presume become inaccessible until the Host reboots. May also want to specify how fast a Host "Heals" damage as it'll take a gawd awful huge Sprite to actually one-shot a Host. Conga line of Kamikaze Fault Sprites incoming!!!!
-
Is there any way Appendix C: Legal Shadowrun Missions can specifically spell out which modules are allowed for Chicago-created PCs, and which are allowed for Neo-Tokyo PCs? Maybe just add a bracket after each heading, like this:
Season 9 Neo-Tokyo Missions [N]
* SRM 09-01 Started from the Bottom
* SRM 09-02 Finders Keepers
* SRM 09-03 Learning Little from Victory
* SRM 09-04 Neo-Tokyo Drift
* SRM 09-05 Violent Shadows
* SRM 09-06 Seven Breaths
-
Is there any way Appendix C: Legal Shadowrun Missions can specifically spell out which modules are allowed for Chicago-created PCs, and which are allowed for Neo-Tokyo PCs? Maybe just add a bracket after each heading, like this:
Season 9 Neo-Tokyo Missions [N]
* SRM 09-01 Started from the Bottom
* SRM 09-02 Finders Keepers
* SRM 09-03 Learning Little from Victory
* SRM 09-04 Neo-Tokyo Drift
* SRM 09-05 Violent Shadows
* SRM 09-06 Seven Breaths
Honestly I think it'll be pretty simple and not necessary. It's going to be Season 9+, and any 2018 CMPs and up, I would assume, since this years cons began the new season. And the CMPs all have their date in the adventure code number (CMP 2010-01, etc).
I could be wrong though. <shrug>
-
Honestly I think it'll be pretty simple and not necessary. It's going to be Season 9+, and any 2018 CMPs and up, I would assume, since this years cons began the new season. And the CMPs all have their date in the adventure code number (CMP 2010-01, etc).
I could be wrong though. <shrug>
It's a bit more complicated than it may seem. There are published modules which are Missions legal, that a new player may assume are legal for either Chicago or Neo-Tokyo. You're not really looking at the CMP number when picking up Sprawl Wilds or Boundless Mercy in the local game store. There's also the introductory events like The First Taste that don't have a year listed.
-
It's a bit more complicated than it may seem. There are published modules which are Missions legal, that a new player may assume are legal for either Chicago or Neo-Tokyo. You're not really looking at the CMP number when picking up Sprawl Wilds or Boundless Mercy in the local game store. There's also the introductory events like The First Taste that don't have a year listed.
First off, I will say that a notation to the FAQ is a simple matter that should be easy enough to include, so I'm not against it, nor do I really care much. So please don't think I'm trying to just shoot you down here.
I'll take these in reverse order:
1. First Taste events are designed to be a example run to help teach new players the game, and to ease players into the Missions experience. They're not really an adventure in and of themselves, as they're short events (2 hours long) and don't have any actual scripted or fully fleshed out adventure to accompany them. They're mostly off the cuff things run by the CDT Agent at whatever event you're at. They're not really an actual Mission, and not something the average player needs or even should play in because as I noted they're targeted at newer players.
So that said, they're going to be either season agnostic (generic enough that it doesn't matter), or it will be obvious based on where they're set (Chicago or Tokyo). And either case, I think whatever full Mission you play next will determine the "Season" regardless of where the First Taste took place.
2. I do wish that the compilations would include the original CMP numbers, but up until this point it's been moot so wasn't needed. Any of them that are SR5 statted are Chicago (A number of these were originally SR4 and done for the Seattle campaign). There haven't been any new compilations released in a while, I don't believe, and don't know if there will be any more done in the future as I'm not sure what sales of them have been like. But either way, it's easy enough to check the name of the adventure vs the CMP list, and if it's SR5 stats and 2017 or earlier, then it's Chicago.
3. Beyond that, what published modules are you referring to? The only other things I can think of would be the April Fools SMP Special Missions, which are one per year at most (I think they average one every other year, mostly, and there's only maybe 4 or 5 of them total, and two of those are only SR4 statted so don't count). Special Missions were outside the usual seasonal paradigm for various reason (The SMP line started originally with a Charity Event adventure back in 4th edition), so in theory you can play them with either. There wasn't one for 2018, I don't believe, so by default to be safe, I'd say they're all Chicago. But that would be a question specifically for Danny and how he wants to handle it going forward.
-
I guess my main point is that for a brand new Shadowrun Missions player who has a 85-page FAQ to go through, having that information spelled out as clearly as possible is a good thing.
-
It is spelled out, and highlighted in bright colors to show the difference. On page 21, under the question "which characters can play in which missions."
Characters created for prior to Season 5 must be converted to 5th Edition become Prime Runners. Characters created for any of Seasons 5-8 (the Chicago Arc) can take part in all regular Missions from those Seasons, Special Missions, and all 5th Edition CMPs published in 2017 or earlier. Characters created for any of Seasons 9-12 (the Neo-Tokyo Arc) can take part in all regular Missions from those Seasons, Special Missions published in or since 2018, and all CMPs published in 2018 thru 2021.
-
It is spelled out, and highlighted in bright colors to show the difference. On page 21, under the question "which characters can play in which missions."
Despite this, I've had a Catalyst Demo Team member tell me in the past month that a 2017 CMP was legal for Neo-Tokyo play. It's an 85-page document, and people are often skimming to find what they need at the time. It wouldn't hurt to add an extra sentence or two to the section people would naturally go to when determining what is legal - Legal Shadowrun Missions.
On a separate subject, is there any chance the license situation could be simplified? It's a pretty staggering number of licenses, and some are there that I can't understand why they would be licensed. For example - Astral Combat. Can you be fined for defending yourself when astral? If you're using a Weapon Focus, I assume that would be covered by a license for the weapon, but unarmed combat in astral space? Same thing goes for listing a license for Assensing. Overall, the licenses are very game-focused instead of lore focused. Summoning, Banishing, and Binding are all separate licenses in the FAQ because they're separate game skills, but in-game people see you doing one thing - exerting control over spirits.
Look, I understand the need for licenses in the game, but there are people creating characters that are at a loss as to what licenses they need, and if there is any penalty for not having them. I've created characters that, by the RAW interpretation of the license rules, need a dozen or more licenses (half just for magical skills). I didn't buy licenses for everything, and it would be nice to know if my character will be fined or jailed because I used Assensing or Counterspelling when a NTMP mage is watching me.
-
With regards to the Licenses, I like the paradigm of "More is More".
It's not appropriate to the genre if you can wave (fake) licenses to the NTMP and justify away your backpack full of illegal gear. (EDIT: For that matter, walking around wearing a backpack ought to cause you to be stopped and searched more often...) You're supposed to do your shadowrunning in such a way that you never encounter a NTMP patrol.
Prioritize what you truly MUST carry around and risk having detected by a random Stop-n-Frisk. Get Licenses for those minimum/mandatory items, and consider having Licenses for every dang illegal thing you own to be an unnecessary luxury. Just don't carry around unlicensed drek 24/7. It's Shadowrun, not Pathfinder. You shouldn't be getting away with carrying around an arsenal (literally or figuratively).
-
Well, most of my examples were regarding magical skill licensing, not gear, but I think even the "More is More " paradigm is getting a bit stretched.
If you're licensed to cast restricted spells with a single spellcasting license, why do you have to have up to 5 other licenses to carry around spell formulas? You can teach a known spell to someone else without a formula, right?
A Grapple Gun is used for B&E, or perhaps Survival with a very generous interpretation. But because it's a separate category in the Equipment list, it's a separate license. This is an example of the FAQ using game rules instead of the lore to determine what licenses are needed.
Likewise, instead of just saying that each restricted weapon needs to be licensed separately, you can carry around a Pole Arm, a Combat Axe, some knives, and a Katana with one license, Blades. But pick up a Stun Baton or Shock Gloves, and an entirely separate license is needed. It just seems a lot of extra text that complicates gameplay and makes licensing more confusing instead of less confusing.
There's a reason that Restricted and Forbidden are separate categories. If the game is willing to allow characters to carry an item without being subject to arrest (assuming their fake SIN holds up), it's Restricted. Otherwise, it's forbidden. Neo-Tokyo makes all firearms Forbidden, which is an easy, lore-based method of keeping characters from walking around with an arsenal.
It would be nice to have purpose-based licenses. If you've got a cover ID as a security guard, you get a security guard license that lets you use the tools of the job - Clubs (for Stun Baton), Armor, Optical and Imaging Devices, and Audio Devices). Likewise, mages with a cover ID as a magical investigator would get a magical investigator license. Unfortunately, there's no way to enable these licenses without a dramatic expansion of the FAQ, and it's already pretty big. You'd also have to charge more for licenses that cover multiple categories of restricted items.
-
I'll look to see if there's a better way to list who can play what Missions.
I kind of agree that licenses might be rebooked, the problem is that there are a bajillion permutations. Security guard license. Ok.
Hunting license? Private eye? Mallco? Locksmith? White Hat hackers? The list goes on.
-
Make the more generic?
Professional Licence- allowed to perform tasks prescient to the profession.
Restricted item authorization licence- the right to carry and use a specific piece of equipment.
Vehicular operation licence- the right pilot a specific class of vehicles.
-
I'll look to see if there's a better way to list who can play what Missions.
I kind of agree that licenses might be rebooked, the problem is that there are a bajillion permutations. Security guard license. Ok.
Hunting license? Private eye? Mallco? Locksmith? White Hat hackers? The list goes on.
Based on the premise that Shadowrun Missions characters rarely buy more than 5 licenses, you could create a Profession License that costs 5x what a single license costs, and applies to anything for that stated profession. NTMP will review these licenses when checking SINs, and anything that seems out of place for the stated profession will be flagged and sent up the chain for additional review (which will cause a second SIN check, even if the first one was passed without issue). In other words, Missions GMs have the authority to clamp down on overly broad licenses.
-
I'll look to see if there's a better way to list who can play what Missions.
I kind of agree that licenses might be rebooked, the problem is that there are a bajillion permutations. Security guard license. Ok.
Hunting license? Private eye? Mallco? Locksmith? White Hat hackers? The list goes on.
Based on the premise that Shadowrun Missions characters rarely buy more than 5 licenses, you could create a Profession License that costs 5x what a single license costs, and applies to anything for that stated profession. NTMP will review these licenses when checking SINs, and anything that seems out of place for the stated profession will be flagged and sent up the chain for additional review (which will cause a second SIN check, even if the first one was passed without issue). In other words, Missions GMs have the authority to clamp down on overly broad licenses.
It might just be that I like the idea of it being prohibitively expensive to get around needing to hide/stash illegal gear when not using it... but I'm thinking that a "one license covers ALL your illegal drek" is a terrible idea.
Table variation sounds like a nightmare on what sorts of specific gear falls under certain professions. Is a bodyguard license going to cover a firearm? Is a Private Investigator expected to be allowed to have an Autopicker? Honestly, those are very variable answers depending on the GM. I prefer one piece of gear needing one license. If you don't wanna pay for all that, don't get caught with an arsenal of illegal gear on your person. Heck, I'm hoping Jayde Moon clarifies my earlier question upthread about licenses for formulae meaning "yes, you need a spellcasting license in general AND a license per spell category you intend to claim is legal spellcasting to the NTMP"
-
Table variation sounds like a nightmare on what sorts of specific gear falls under certain professions. Is a bodyguard license going to cover a firearm? Is a Private Investigator expected to be allowed to have an Autopicker? Honestly, those are very variable answers depending on the GM.
Well, we know the answer to your first question if they're playing Seasons 9-12. ;)
There's already a lot of table variance depending on GM. One GM I play with regularly will always have a spirit spend Edge to resist Summoning. One I played with this weekend used Etiquette instead of Con for me to talk my way past a guard. I don't see this being any more of a hazard than what already exists.
I prefer one piece of gear needing one license. If you don't wanna pay for all that, don't get caught with an arsenal of illegal gear on your person. Heck, I'm hoping Jayde Moon clarifies my earlier question upthread about licenses for formulae meaning "yes, you need a spellcasting license in general AND a license per spell category you intend to claim is legal spellcasting to the NTMP"
That seems like a lot of effort for something that will only stop characters who haven't played a single mission. With 8k+ per mission, you can buy 5+ licenses for a level 5 fake SIN (Availability 15, attainable by a starting Contact) and still have money left over. It just becomes a convoluted tax for starting characters, unless Missions starts routinely burning SINs. We're playing the game to have fun - it's not Living Accounting. If 5x normal cost is too cheap, make it 10x normal cost. The goal isn't to get away with stuff cheaply - it's to reduce the level of complexity so people can get back to having fun.
-
Is the GM ALWAYS spending Edge to resist summoning? Are they running an official Missions game?
-
Always?_? Not only to resist over-summoning??
-
Is the GM ALWAYS spending Edge to resist summoning? Are they running an official Missions game?
Well, he definitely does it when players summon Force 6 spirits. I think he cuts players a break if they only summon Force 3 or less. I've only summoned one spirit at his table recently, because after a few games playing a mystic adept shaman who liked summoning Spirits of Man, I switched to playing a decker. I just started a magical character for the first time in years last month, for Neo-Tokyo. And yes, it is official Missions. I don't see a rule against the GM using the spirit's Edge to resist, so it's technically legal - just harsh. To be clear, I haven't been playing a mage for a while, so he may have discontinued this practice, but it was definitely a thing a few years ago, and the reason I stopped playing a mage at his table.
Anyway, this is already a bit more public than I'd prefer. For more details, I can take it to private messages.
-
As far as I'm aware there's no rule against a GM doing that.
-
So then, since someone decided to abuse their Missions GM position to bully mages out of Shadowrun with excessive behaviour, it should apparently be made an explicit rule. And it's incredibly disappointing that someone would force that.
-
I think that it's kind of adorable that you believe, that would bully mages out of SR Missions play.
We all already know what did that, and even during the very beginning of Chicago when the BC nonsense was at it's worst we
will still had good number casters. Making it harder to get spirits services is far from end of the world.
-
The problem is more one of consistency across tables.
A GM making a call to use Etiquette instead of Con to schmooze past a guard is one thing (maybe you were just trying not to sound like a total idiot while chatting up the latest Urban Brawl series as a distraction as opposed to convincing them you're the CEO of the company they're guarding) but always having Spirits use Edge is a pretty big inconsistency.
-
I agree, i don't see a need to have a spirits ever use edge to resist summoning. I usually ask myself "Does this make the game more fun?" or "Does this add something to the player's experience?" before i do something like that and 100% of the time the answer to that is no.
-
Edge against oversummoning is a fair gameplay-balancing measure, and was an explicit rule in SR4. Given the impact a Force 10 Spirit would have on a table (which is easier to summon than a F6 using Edge), it can be quite reasonable to employ. But there needs to be consistency.
-
Edge against oversummoning is a fair gameplay-balancing measure, and was an explicit rule in SR4. Given the impact a Force 10 Spirit would have on a table (which is easier to summon than a F6 using Edge), it can be quite reasonable to employ. But there needs to be consistency.
This is all glorious news to me.
I'm thinking "if you spend edge on summoning the spirit, then the spirit spends edge on resisting being summoned" is a 'fair is fair' guideline on when to spend edge.
-
I agree consistency is important. But I'd suggest that consistency with the we trust the GM is more important, then whether GM are edging spirits resistence rolls. The other thing to keep in mind not all uses of edge are equal. High edge value prespending verses re-roll.
-
Michael pointed out to me in a private message that my replies here maybe consider dismissive and rude concerning the summoning issue. He also obviated the need for us to discuss it further, but I felt others may share his point of view and I thought this might a good moment to explain my logic, and that some may find my logic of some use to them.
When gaming, particularly con gaming, I practice what I consider to be, responsible table etiquette. Which is to say, I agree with sitting GM's ruling. Always. Even and Particularly when I know the GM made the wrong call, and yes if you're interested I have lost characters and even had a TPK as result of this. After the Game is over, I may talk to the GM and point out the rule, get his/her thoughts and logic. If I can't understand or agree then I may choose to skip that table in future, but that rarely happens.
To me this was case where a sitting GM made a perfectly reasonable call, so I support that call. For the same reasons I practice table etiquette b/c the GM's job is hard, should and must be supported. Now if I was talking with the GM I might have different suggestions to make. But that's a different question and set circumstances.
Now on the forums I love arguing about rules to me it's a lot of fun. I'm sure this concept isn't new to any of our regulars but maybe some home viewers will gain something from it.
-
When gaming, particularly con gaming, I practice what I consider to be responsible table etiquette. Which is to say, I agree with sitting GM's ruling. Always. Even and particularly when I know the GM made the wrong call ...
Well said. From the other side of the screen, it's always better to make a spot call and keep the game moving than put everything on hold and hunt for a rule. If I find out later that I made a bad ruling, I'll refresh a point of Edge by way of apology/compensation.
-
When gaming particularly con gaming, i practice what I consider to be, responsible table etiquette. Which is to say, I agree with sitting GM's ruling. Always. Even and Particularly when I know the GM made the wrong call, and yes if you're interested I have lost characters and even a TPK as result of this. After the Game is over I may to talk to the GM and point out the rule , get his/her thoughts and logic. If i can't understand or agree then I may choose to skip that table in future, but that rarely happens.
To me this was case where a sitting GM made a perfectly reasonable call, so I support that calls For the same reason I practice table etiquette b/c the GM's job is hard, should and must be supported. Now if I was talking with the GM I might have different suggestion to make. But that's a different question and set circumstances.
I’m not going to go into the specific details of the incidents that started this particular discussion on a public forum. I will say that in each case I accepted the GMs ruling, and briefly brought up my concerns after the end of the game session. This is not about stopping a game in mid-session because of a dispute over a ruling. The FAQ gives broad latitude for a GM to adjust difficulty as needed to make the session challenging but fun. Where the concern arises is when a GM makes these changes not to create a better game, but because they have a pet peeve about a particular aspect of the rules. A blanket table rule like “always spend Edge to resist Summoning if the spirit is at or above Force X” is an example of the latter.
Regardless of the intent, GMs who have a stated preference and regularly institute module adjustments to enforce that preference drive away players who have made that particular aspect a large part of their character. They may also create an impression among new players that their decision is part of the ruleset instead of a judgement call. It’s particularly harsh on those who are using brand new characters, who don’t have the Karma or Nuyen to have a broad bench of skills and abilities. This happens with all different character types, not just mages. Deckers who can’t hack bad guys because the foes regularly run with wireless off. Characters with AoE attacks (spells, grenades, shotguns, etc) who find that no bad guy will ever stand within 2m of another bad guy, regardless of the situation. Social characters who can’t convince foes because even random bouncers use Edge to resist their manipulations. The pickpocket who steals a 10 nuyen flashlight and is told he can’t keep it at the end of the module because the GM doesn’t allow ‘looting’. It’s less about putting a new rule in the FAQ to fix things, and more about changing the culture. Challenge the players, but don’t forget to give them a chance to shine in their area of expertise.
I’ve been affected by this in Missions. Two of my characters have effectively been retired because I felt that either table rules or bias crippled a major aspect of the character. I’m doing my best to create characters that won’t be affected by these situations, and trying to avoid the GMs that do this at their tables. The problem is, when you only have two or three total CDT agents running games at a con, sometimes your only option for avoiding that GM is to not play.
-
Not meaning in anyway to be rude but my concern with your argument is a blanket table rule like “always spend Edge to resist Summoning if the spirit is at or above Force X” can be a perfectly valid policy for making the game better.
This forum has had several knock out, drag out brawls on the topic spirits summoning. The community generally doesn't care b/c most players do exactly what you do and summon a force 6 at the beginning of the run. Which is a perfectly legit thing to do. Certainly the game working as intended.
But there are builds and tactics designed around calling up small spirit army. When those builds show up, GMs often make some rules to help limit that sort situation from arising again, as it can be disruptive. Clearly I have no idea if this GM has had such an encounter, or maybe just read one of several threads on the topic.
I think making a new character if you feel something is too disruptive to it is fine a choice. I think rebuilding a character to adjust away from that aspect is also an equally fine or better choice.
Personally I've never run across a CDT agent whom I wasn't very happy to play with (though rumor has it I am marked for death by at least one such agent), further I've never met one who wasn't also very concerned about the happiness of their players. So I'd suggest expressing your concerns to your local agents. I'm sure any CDT agent would at-least take your concerns seriously.
-
Not meaning in anyway to be rude but my concern with your argument is a blanket table rule like “always spend Edge to resist Summoning if the spirit is at or above Force X” can be a perfectly valid policy for making the game better.
While a true statement, it's less valid as a 'rogue element' in an medium where consistency is a pillar of organized play.
NOTE: I put that in ' ' because I don't mean anything negatively towards the GM that is doing this, as Marcus points out, there's nothing inherently wrong with it.