<znip>
Also. Check the very lengthly thread regarding the new TM book in the Rules section. Lots to comb through.
Not sure if any of that was aimed at me, but if it was you don't have to tell me; I'm painfully aware that Magic is something most people dismiss as "because magic", while the same people look at technology and Resonance and go "Wait, what?". And I think that's common, because most of us probably has at least a working understanding of how modern technology goes, and so we likely also have an innate need for Resonance to make sense.
I personally liked Resonance particularly and the Matrix in general when it was less mystical and more grounded in technology; before the equivalent of in-game engineers going "we don't know really know how to build these "servers" that the Matrix runs on, so we kind of just "grow" them out of this "foundation" thingymabob" when the people responsible for the Matrix and even many of it's users knew what was actually going on.
While the 4th Edition Matrix was time-consuming to fully master, at least it made sense to a lot of people. It's the same argument I've seen with firearms, believe it or not; most people know roughly how a firearm works, and even experts often don't question how all firearms classed as "heavy pistols" use the same ammunition but have different damage codes because as a rules system it works. The Matrix is not the same, because not only do we have a partial analogy in the real world internet, we also don't have a "close enough" mechanical system.
And that's important, as mentioned here:
The above. Personally I think that if Technomancers didn't exist and only Deckers did we'd see complaints about Deckers instead.
The Matrix in 5th Edition has had several tables just handwave the whole thing. So I don't think the Technomancer rules are fully to blame here, I think the Matrix as a whole has some glaring issues (which I've commented on in other threads so I won't pursue that particular agenda here any further).
Again. I think technomancers need more clarification and lore expansion than anything else, allowing for GMs to better grasp their playstyles and incorporate them into their games without thinking them too special/annoying.
I'd definitely agree with this; I was hoping Data Trails would make the Matrix more understandable, but unfortunately (in my opinion only) the writers decided to push forward with what I like to call the Mystical Matrix, making it even less relatable than it was before. This is problematic because obviously, a lot of GMs look at those rules and go "Wait, how does that work?" or even "Wait, that can't possibly be right" and then impose unreasonable restrictions on what hackers, both Deckers and Technomancers, should, by all accounts, be able to do.
I will say that I disagree with the notion that a Technomancer shouldn't be able to be played like a decker; according to the lore, technomancers should be able to be competent hackers. As it stands, that's just not the case because a Decker has so much more to bring to bear against dedicated defenses. The only aspect I see Technomancers being strictly "better" at is stealth, and that's solely because of Cleaner. Again, I personally feel like an aspiring hacker should be able to play either a Technomancer or a Decker and achieve the same thing; sleazing or brute forcing his or her way past firewalls, breaking encryption, and getting away with the paydata while trying to fend off the IC that's chasing them. With the current rules, Technomancers are just at a severe disadvantage in doing that no matter how you turn the mechanics on it's head.
Another big one for me:
CybercombatBecause a Technomancer doesn't have a Matrix Condition Monitor and instead takes all damage as Stun, they risk their very lives going into the Matrix. A few good hits from a Decker with a high Attack rating and you're sleeping off the unconsciousness for a few hours. Deckers can get a Pain Editor with little to no drawbacks because they're likely cybered up anyway, while a Technomancer loses out on Resonance if he does and according to the fluff he's more likely to disdain such tech in the first place.
What I see most often is that players and GM's both do not a full grasp of what they are capable of, or that they over complicate things. In fact I have had many GM's who have straight up said they do not allow TM's because they do not understand them, but once I walk them threw their abilities and compare them to magicians using the matrix in lieu of astral, complex forms for spells, and sprites for spirits it is amazing how many light bulbs come on that point. All in all, I am just seeking to see if that is the same sort of issue I see here on the forums without having to go back and dig through countless threads that are mostly just complaining.
also with that said, there is already a lot of information here for me to digest and I thank you all for it so far
To my mind, this is part of the problem, but not all of it. If a number of newcomers fail to see the problem with the Technomancer (and/or Matrix) rules, is that a failing of the newcomers or a failing with the way the rules are written?
And I would consider my grasp of the mechanical rules to be quite extensive, yet I don't see any lightbulbs as you put it in terms of how Technomancers are even remotely viable compared to Deckers. And I think that might be another part of the problem; Technomancers CAN be playable, assuming a table uses low to medium sized dice pools (I'd estimate 12 as a high pool). In those conditions you don't need to thread Complex Forms at rating 6 or higher all the time, or compile and register an army of sprites to help you hack. But as evidenced by the character creation subforum on this very board, a lot of people build characters that are much more focused, with dice pools in a primary skill in the 15s or higher. And Technomancers just can't keep up with that.
I also think Mirikon brought up a very good point; a lot of us have experience from previous editions where Deckers and Technomancers were more balanced; they could both achieve the same objective in the Matrix, they just used different methods to do so. Today, that's just not the case.
And finally, Hobbes is spot on; with Missions being designed as a lower-difficulty game, I think Technomancers can do just fine (assuming the GM has an open enough mind to accept the Matrix as more fiction than science), but once you start moving past that level I just don't think that's true any more.
Please do let us know how you get on, Kincaid; it'll be interesting to see how that works out. (PS: I'm very much enjoying reading Shaken: No Job Too Small at the moment; will leave you a review once I finish
).