NEWS

SR6 FAQ

  • 55 Replies
  • 1353 Views

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
« on: <08-05-20/0751:27> »
A few points, praises, and criticisms worth bringing up:

Downtime
Overall I like the way this was implemented, especially ditching training times for adding value to Lifestyle choice instead, which previously has basically been an irrelevant choice.

On the other hand, I think that the 1 major/1 minor or 3 minor actions between each Mission is really going to limit the building and growth of some character types. Especially when you consider wanting to work for the man/people, there is too much to do for some characters and being that limited won't allow for a fraction of it unless the karma and nuyen rewards are being substantially reduced from Chicago's Season.

Augmented Skills
I see that SSDR's preferred interpretation of the skill augmentation made it to the FAQ. Overall it is a fine way to run the rule, but it does leave a few odd inconsistencies that I think need considered.

For example, any foci that adds to a skill roll (such as power, spellcasting, summoning, ect.) has no value in being over rating 4, but others that do not add to a skill roll (such as centering and qi) still go as high as you care to afford. It just makes for a really unsophisticated application to me.

Bioware/Cyberware
I know this rule existed previously as well, but I personally can't think of any good reason why we shouldn't allow characters to purchase used cultured bioware. Can someone explain to me why that choice was made?

"TL:DR 6e's reduction of meaningful choices is akin to forcing everyone to wear training wheels. Now it's just becomes a bunch of toddlers riding around on tricycles they can't fall off of." - Adzling

markelphoenix

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 595
« Reply #1 on: <08-05-20/0816:17> »
A few points, praises, and criticisms worth bringing up:

Downtime
Overall I like the way this was implemented, especially ditching training times for adding value to Lifestyle choice instead, which previously has basically been an irrelevant choice.

On the other hand, I think that the 1 major/1 minor or 3 minor actions between each Mission is really going to limit the building and growth of some character types. Especially when you consider wanting to work for the man/people, there is too much to do for some characters and being that limited won't allow for a fraction of it unless the karma and nuyen rewards are being substantially reduced from Chicago's Season.

Augmented Skills
I see that SSDR's preferred interpretation of the skill augmentation made it to the FAQ. Overall it is a fine way to run the rule, but it does leave a few odd inconsistencies that I think need considered.

For example, any foci that adds to a skill roll (such as power, spellcasting, summoning, ect.) has no value in being over rating 4, but others that do not add to a skill roll (such as centering and qi) still go as high as you care to afford. It just makes for a really unsophisticated application to me.

Bioware/Cyberware
I know this rule existed previously as well, but I personally can't think of any good reason why we shouldn't allow characters to purchase used cultured bioware. Can someone explain to me why that choice was made?

I believe it's due to Cultured Bioware being extremely tailored to a specific individual, so much so that it's effectively a tailored made organ specifically for their body, vs none cultured bioware that is more generic in nature.

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
« Reply #2 on: <08-05-20/0825:56> »
I believe it's due to Cultured Bioware being extremely tailored to a specific individual, so much so that it's effectively a tailored made organ specifically for their body, vs none cultured bioware that is more generic in nature.

I get that logic. My point is the core rules do not use that logic though, as used cultured bioware is allowed in general for the game, so why do we feel the need to disallow that for Missions? It's not exactly a game balance problem.
"TL:DR 6e's reduction of meaningful choices is akin to forcing everyone to wear training wheels. Now it's just becomes a bunch of toddlers riding around on tricycles they can't fall off of." - Adzling

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #3 on: <08-05-20/0853:09> »
Downtime
Overall I like the way this was implemented, especially ditching training times for adding value to Lifestyle choice instead, which previously has basically been an irrelevant choice.
Hah! Seems to have ended up in a very similar place to my own downtime houserules (https://paydata.org/houserules/characters/downtime/). And, I note, yeeted SR6's training times into the sun, where they belong.

Beta

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1794
  • SR1 player, SR5 GM@FtF & player@PbP
« Reply #4 on: <08-05-20/0943:19> »
Where are you finding this?  I don't see a link on this forum?
Tipperman  --
speechthoughtmatrix

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #5 on: <08-05-20/0945:16> »
Where are you finding this?  I don't see a link on this forum?
I had to dig it out of the SRM discord, which is linked from the SRM website.

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9619
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #6 on: <08-05-20/0946:49> »
It got posted on the Discord for now, I'm guessing it will be officially posted soonish (might be checking into a slightly-fixed v1.1 due to typos?).
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2866
« Reply #7 on: <08-05-20/1002:28> »
I believe it's due to Cultured Bioware being extremely tailored to a specific individual, so much so that it's effectively a tailored made organ specifically for their body, vs none cultured bioware that is more generic in nature.

I get that logic. My point is the core rules do not use that logic though, as used cultured bioware is allowed in general for the game, so why do we feel the need to disallow that for Missions? It's not exactly a game balance problem.

Beta and Delta grades are also allowed at char gen in the CRB, but not for Missions.  I'm not sure why as Nuyen/Essence sliders were never really an issue. 

The rest I thought was good.

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 3916
« Reply #8 on: <08-05-20/1058:05> »
A few points, praises, and criticisms worth bringing up:

Downtime
Overall I like the way this was implemented, especially ditching training times for adding value to Lifestyle choice instead, which previously has basically been an irrelevant choice.

Glad to hear you like it! Making lifestyle count for more was a personal priority.  And though this, we even found a way to un-ban the Street lifestyle!

Quote
On the other hand, I think that the 1 major/1 minor or 3 minor actions between each Mission is really going to limit the building and growth of some character types. Especially when you consider wanting to work for the man/people, there is too much to do for some characters and being that limited won't allow for a fraction of it unless the karma and nuyen rewards are being substantially reduced from Chicago's Season.

The opportunity cost is the intended point.  Not only are training times yeeted, it's now more comparatively attractive to invest karma in attributes and skills than on things like spells that have a tiny (karma) cost for huge benefit. 

Quote
Augmented Skills
I see that SSDR's preferred interpretation of the skill augmentation made it to the FAQ. Overall it is a fine way to run the rule, but it does leave a few odd inconsistencies that I think need considered.

For example, any foci that adds to a skill roll (such as power, spellcasting, summoning, ect.) has no value in being over rating 4, but others that do not add to a skill roll (such as centering and qi) still go as high as you care to afford. It just makes for a really unsophisticated application to me.

Well, it remains to be seen how BGCs will work this time around.  But if they work like they did in 5e, a rating 6 focus still works in a rating 4 or 5 background count, whereas the rating 4won't.

Furthermore, you're overlooking negative dice.  -2 dice from damage and +6 dice from gear puts you at a net of +4, which caps out your augmented skill still.  The rating 4 focus would have only put you at a net +2.

Quote
Bioware/Cyberware
I know this rule existed previously as well, but I personally can't think of any good reason why we shouldn't allow characters to purchase used cultured bioware. Can someone explain to me why that choice was made?

Campaign availability restriction.  Think of it like Neo-Tokyo altering the availability of guns.
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.

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
« Reply #9 on: <08-05-20/1143:35> »
Beta and Delta grades are also allowed at char gen in the CRB, but not for Missions.  I'm not sure why as Nuyen/Essence sliders were never really an issue. 

The rest I thought was good.

Very true, and also unnecessary imo.

The opportunity cost is the intended point.  Not only are training times yeeted, it's now more comparatively attractive to invest karma in attributes and skills than on things like spells that have a tiny (karma) cost for huge benefit.

See, I am fine with the concept of a time limit opportunity cost, but I can tell just by looking at that chart, knowing character build options, and the cost of those options that it is going to be too restrictive if the average 7 karma/12,000Y per mission carries over from Chicago. There will be points that cannot get spent in some cases, which is silly.

The better choice would have just been to alter spell costs if cost for impact is a concern, or you know, just have balanced the base system better. . .(this is the only jab I'll take, I promise!)

Well, it remains to be seen how BGCs will work this time around.  But if they work like they did in 5e, a rating 6 focus still works in a rating 4 or 5 background count, whereas the rating 4won't.

Furthermore, you're overlooking negative dice.  -2 dice from damage and +6 dice from gear puts you at a net of +4, which caps out your augmented skill still.  The rating 4 focus would have only put you at a net +2.

So here is my problem with this.

1. BGC don't exist. So interpreting a rule for a thing that doesn't exist is pointless unless/until it does.

2. The logic of the negative dice example doesn't flow for me. I have magic 6 + spellcasting 6 + 2 specialization + 4 spellcasting focus for 18 dice. If I take a negative 2 from to that pool from something how does that alter or change the fact that my pool has still already been augmented by +4?

If we are going to go with a skill test can bear +4 dice after all modifications (both pos and negative) are factored in that is fine, but you have to admit that is just a really sloppy "fix".

"TL:DR 6e's reduction of meaningful choices is akin to forcing everyone to wear training wheels. Now it's just becomes a bunch of toddlers riding around on tricycles they can't fall off of." - Adzling

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2866
« Reply #10 on: <08-05-20/1230:57> »

Furthermore, you're overlooking negative dice.  -2 dice from damage and +6 dice from gear puts you at a net of +4, which caps out your augmented skill still.  The rating 4 focus would have only put you at a net +2.


I don't think I've ever seen Augmented caps interpreted that way.  If that were the case, there would be a pretty solid argument for running +6 or so a character's primary Attribute. 

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2866
« Reply #11 on: <08-05-20/1238:50> »


Bioware/Cyberware
I know this rule existed previously as well, but I personally can't think of any good reason why we shouldn't allow characters to purchase used cultured bioware. Can someone explain to me why that choice was made?

Campaign availability restriction.  Think of it like Neo-Tokyo altering the availability of guns.

But the CRB "Campaign" is set in Seattle by default and so is Missions.  The Neo-Tokyo (and London) weapon restrictions represent game world fluff that Firearms are more difficult / illegal / whatever.  There isn't any fluff that 'ware is more restricted/less available in Seattle.  Quite the opposite, IMO.  I didn't get the need to restrict 'ware grades in 5th, I don't see the need in 6th.  But it's a minor deal, just less clicks on the Essence/Nuyen slider.

Overall, I think it's an improvement from the 5E Missions FAQ.  And includes some nice QoL improvements/clarifications for 6th edition.  You all did a great job on it!

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 3916
« Reply #12 on: <08-05-20/1250:42> »
The opportunity cost is the intended point.  Not only are training times yeeted, it's now more comparatively attractive to invest karma in attributes and skills than on things like spells that have a tiny (karma) cost for huge benefit.

See, I am fine with the concept of a time limit opportunity cost, but I can tell just by looking at that chart, knowing character build options, and the cost of those options that it is going to be too restrictive if the average 7 karma/12,000Y per mission carries over from Chicago. There will be points that cannot get spent in some cases, which is silly.

I don't follow what you're saying in the bolded portion.  Or rather, if I DO understand, it's so obviously false that I think I must be misunderstanding what you're saying.

It costs nothing, opportunity-wise, to train attributes, skills, and qualities.  It only costs karma (edit: ok, yes. and some nuyen).  Spend it and done. Literally that simple.  So no I can't imagine any case where you are literally have so much karma you are unable to spend the karma. 

Now if you're saying that "maybe you don't want to spend karma on attributes, skills, and qualities.  Maybe you got those as high as you'll ever need in chargen, and all you want to do is spend karma on initiating and more spells from here on out".  if so: it's still not mathematically correct.  The most chargen karma SRM allows you to carry over as fully fungible karma is 5.  That means the most karma you can likely have on hand at the first opportunity to spend karma post-chargen is 10-12.  You can learn up to 3 spells after your first mission, which that won't cover.  And learning 7-ish karma per mission thereafter isn't going to accrue more karma than you can spend solely on non attribute/skill/quality purposes.


Quote
The better choice would have just been to alter spell costs if cost for impact is a concern, or you know, just have balanced the base system better. . .(this is the only jab I'll take, I promise!)

Revamping the karma costs for character development was a step too far for SRM's mission.  Inventing a between-missions mechanic from whole cloth is acceptable because SRM GMs can't adjudicate between-mission activities without breaking the 4 hour time block constraint or avoiding use of non-sanctioned adventuring material.

Quote
Well, it remains to be seen how BGCs will work this time around.  But if they work like they did in 5e, a rating 6 focus still works in a rating 4 or 5 background count, whereas the rating 4won't.

Furthermore, you're overlooking negative dice.  -2 dice from damage and +6 dice from gear puts you at a net of +4, which caps out your augmented skill still.  The rating 4 focus would have only put you at a net +2.

So here is my problem with this.

1. BGC don't exist. So interpreting a rule for a thing that doesn't exist is pointless unless/until it does.

BGCs don't factor into the reasoning behind how the augmented skill rule was interpreted.  I brought it up because you alleged that R6 Foci have no value beyond F4, and that's a potential counter-example to a +4 dice cap either way.

Quote
2. The logic of the negative dice example doesn't flow for me. I have magic 6 + spellcasting 6 + 2 specialization + 4 spellcasting focus for 18 dice. If I take a negative 2 from to that pool from something how does that alter or change the fact that my pool has still already been augmented by +4?

If we are going to go with a skill test can bear +4 dice after all modifications (both pos and negative) are factored in that is fine, but you have to admit that is just a really sloppy "fix".

Ok.

So rolling a skill test, whether it's an unopposed success test or an opposed test, has the following in common:

The pool is assembled by A+B+C+D+E.  A is your raw attribute.  B is your bonuses to A, and has a cap of +4. C is your raw skill.  D is your expertise/specialization, if you have it.  E is everything else, and (under this interpretation/clarification) is capped at +4.

It doesn't seem sloppy to me... it seems the opposite really.  Simple and streamlined.
« Last Edit: <08-05-20/1257:25> by Stainless Steel Devil Rat »
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.

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
« Reply #13 on: <08-05-20/1406:26> »
Now if you're saying that "maybe you don't want to spend karma on attributes, skills, and qualities.  Maybe you got those as high as you'll ever need in chargen, and all you want to do is spend karma on initiating and more spells from here on out".  if so: it's still not mathematically correct.  The most chargen karma SRM allows you to carry over as fully fungible karma is 5.  That means the most karma you can likely have on hand at the first opportunity to spend karma post-chargen is 10-12.  You can learn up to 3 spells after your first mission, which that won't cover.  And learning 7-ish karma per mission thereafter isn't going to accrue more karma than you can spend solely on non attribute/skill/quality purposes.

This is closer to what I meant, but I had missed the part of the FAQ limiting carry over karma, which mostly solves the issue.

BGCs don't factor into the reasoning behind how the augmented skill rule was interpreted.  I brought it up because you alleged that R6 Foci have no value beyond F4, and that's a potential counter-example to a +4 dice cap either way.
\

All I am saying is the potential counter-example is only relevant if BGC do function that way.

The pool is assembled by A+B+C+D+E.  A is your raw attribute.  B is your bonuses to A, and has a cap of +4. C is your raw skill.  D is your expertise/specialization, if you have it.  E is everything else, and (under this interpretation/clarification) is capped at +4.

It doesn't seem sloppy to me... it seems the opposite really.  Simple and streamlined.

I suspect we just won't agree here, so I won't try to convince you. Just to clarify my point of what I meant by sloppy though, I meant the fact that one of the primary selling points on the new edge system was to eradicate shifting modifiers math. Yet we still have quite a few of them, and this rule interpretation (which I overall support) just further plays into what the edge system was meant to do away with, or make easier.
"TL:DR 6e's reduction of meaningful choices is akin to forcing everyone to wear training wheels. Now it's just becomes a bunch of toddlers riding around on tricycles they can't fall off of." - Adzling

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9619
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #14 on: <08-05-20/1630:28> »
Reduction is not eradication.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!