NEWS

Anticipation... again :-)

  • 109 Replies
  • 2225 Views

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5856
« on: <08-05-20/1638:56> »
So, Mission FAQ is up.

Edit. No it isn't.

Edit2. Yes, now it is again. New link.


It state/clarify that multiple attacks with firearms is only when you attack with 2 different firearms and Anticipation is only used when attacking two different targets with 2 different guns while at the same time having the ambidextrous quality.

Thoughts?
« Last Edit: <08-21-20/0220:08> by Xenon »

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 3916
« Reply #1 on: <08-05-20/1648:36> »
So, Mission FAQ is up.

It state/clarify that multiple attacks with firearms is only when you attack with 2 different firearms and Anticipation is only used when attacking two different targets with 2 different guns while at the same time having the ambidextrous quality.

Thoughts?

Obligatory "gotta get this in before it gets out of hand" comment:

This only applies to SRM.

It is in no way meant to tell you how to run your home games.  It's only how things should be done for SRM so that everyone does it the same way... not errata.  The two different rules for more or less the same thing (shooting multiple targets at once) are at best problematic to reconcile together.  So this is how they work together in SRM, rather than letting one GM say they work together this way, and that one saying they work together that way.
« Last Edit: <08-05-20/1651:26> 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.

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5856
« Reply #2 on: <08-05-20/1705:30> »
This reading is not contradicting any single rule (it is perfectly rules legal, RAW, and might very well also be the intended way to resolve it, RAI).


SS, SA (double tap) and Narrow burst does not use the Multiple Attacks action.
Wide Burst does not mention that you use the Multiple Attacks action (and if I recall correctly the German translation even explicitly mention that you don't use the Multiple Attacks action)
Full Auto explicitly mention that you don't use the Multiple Attacks action.


Off-Hand Attacks mention that you use Multiple Attacks action.
Off-hand Attacks also mention that you can't spend edge on attacks unless you are ambidextrous


Multiple Attacks doesn't mention attacking multiple targets with one hand, but it does mention one sword in each hand, one gun in one hand a knife in the other (while the action doesn't spell it out it does seem to support the notion that you only use Multiple Attacks while dual wielding)


Anticipation require that you use a Multiple Attacks action (which mean you are doing a main hand attack and an off-hand attack)
...and it is an Edge Action (which mean your off-hand attack will not benefit from anticipation unless you are ambidextrous).

0B

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 150
  • Be seeing you
« Reply #3 on: <08-05-20/1925:44> »
For use in home games, I see the SRM as "Rulings that I should consider carefully," similar to "Sage Advice" for D&D. Some of them, like the rulings for Amp Up and Anticipation, make sense. Others would not: IE, I wouldn't have an issue with the sammy giving the rigger 10,000 nuyen for a new vehicle after the old one blew up.

At minimum, they're "rulings that multiple people have thought about, and have most likely been signed off on by CGL."

markelphoenix

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 595
« Reply #4 on: <08-05-20/2024:05> »
For use in home games, I see the SRM as "Rulings that I should consider carefully," similar to "Sage Advice" for D&D. Some of them, like the rulings for Amp Up and Anticipation, make sense. Others would not: IE, I wouldn't have an issue with the sammy giving the rigger 10,000 nuyen for a new vehicle after the old one blew up.

At minimum, they're "rulings that multiple people have thought about, and have most likely been signed off on by CGL."

Also, they are rules within context of having to persist characters between multiple GMs under a unified ruleset, vs the traditional Homebrew options that usually come up with small groups with 1 or 2 GMs that know each other. Rules that server a specific purpose vs. the general case.

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #5 on: <08-06-20/1214:39> »
For use in home games, I see the SRM as "Rulings that I should consider carefully," similar to "Sage Advice" for D&D.
I think most of them are straight up good ideas, and deserve more airtime than they get. It’s easy to overlook the SRM FAQ if you don’t play SRM, but both the 5e and 6e ones have lots of stuff that is applicable to any table. I think it’d be good for Shadowrun if the bulk of their content was moved to a generic FAQ, equally applicable for all players, with only the most Missions-specific stuff held back.

Consider those downtime rules, for example. They’d be a very good fit for the 6e player’s handbook splat.

0B

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 150
  • Be seeing you
« Reply #6 on: <08-06-20/1226:20> »
Consider those downtime rules, for example. They’d be a very good fit for the 6e player’s handbook splat.

Yeah, I don't think it'd be very hard to throw it in their indesign template, stick 1-2 half-page or quarter-page pieces of art in it, and release them as an add-on PDF. They're already doing a "shadow stock" series with cheap, short PDFs. Personally, I think one that small (It's what, 4 pages?) ought to be free, but even a $0.99 - $2.99 pricetag for "Advanced Downtime" rules wouldn't be terrible if they're paying to put art on it and alter the wording a bit so it's not SRM specific.

Or even add it on as an appendix the next time they update the 6E CRB PDF. Who knows.

Edit: Basically something like this. The background is CC-BY-SA 4.0, it's for another project-


You only have to take out a couple of sentences to remove the SRM-specific stuff
« Last Edit: <08-06-20/1248:03> by 0B »

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9619
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #7 on: <08-06-20/1244:56> »
A Lifestyle+Downtime small supplement would be nice. On the other hand, given the amount of agression thrown around at 'hey here's some training time guidelines, but do whatever feels right for your campaign', having 'hey here's some downtime guidelines, but do whatever feels right for your campaign' might also get massively attacked and be considered a risk.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #8 on: <08-06-20/1246:12> »
A Lifestyle+Downtime small supplement would be nice. On the other hand, given the amount of agression thrown around at 'hey here's some training time guidelines, but do whatever feels right for your campaign', having 'hey here's some downtime guidelines, but do whatever feels right for your campaign' might also get massively attacked and be considered a risk.
Keep beatin' that strawman, Mikey! Your persistence is an inspiration to us all.

0B

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 150
  • Be seeing you
« Reply #9 on: <08-06-20/1657:41> »
A Lifestyle+Downtime small supplement would be nice. On the other hand, given the amount of agression thrown around at 'hey here's some training time guidelines, but do whatever feels right for your campaign', having 'hey here's some downtime guidelines, but do whatever feels right for your campaign' might also get massively attacked and be considered a risk.

There's a big difference between having something like that in a core rulebook and having it in a splatbook or alternate rulebook. I think SR's always had some issues with loose wording on rules, as well as identifying RAI vs RAW.

The SRM guidelines are clear and use direct sentences. For example:

"Gear must be fenced through one of your contacts per the rules on Fencing Gear (SR6 pg. 246). However, the percentage increase from an Influence + Charisma check is capped by Loyalty, which is effectively reduced by one for every point of Heat."

There is no room for doubt here; if I were editing, the only change I'd make is getting rid of that pesky adverb. It also provides a clear reference to a rule (Rules on Fencing Gear), and the book + page number where to find that rule.

Sometimes, it is okay to be more nebulous. From the CRB, pg. 36:

"A glitch on a roll by a helper should cause significant distraction to the next action or few actions they take, preventing them from gaining or spending Edge for one to three combat rounds."

The 'should' used here is fine because glitches tend towards the realm of GM fiat: that is to say, the rules cannot account for every situation, so they instead provide intent and a recommendation. The direction is clear- glitches cause some sort of significant distraction. The specifics are left to the GM, since "distraction" means something different in different scenarios.

Compare to this:

"The time it takes to raise any given ability is truly only suggested—the actual time used is up to the gamemaster, with times best fitting the story they want to tell, but we offer the listed times to create a general consensus."

First of all, get rid of that adverb. "Truly" adds nothing. Second of all, this does not provide a clear enough direction for the GM with "best fitting the story." When you write a rulebook, you need to write it as if it's the first board game that someone's played. Failing that, write it as if it's their first RPG. SR isn't the only TTRPG guilty of this. I digress. If, later on in the GM section, they talked about having "fast-paced" versus "long" campaigns, and suggested that GMs alter training time to better match the pace of runs, this would be acceptable. As it stands, the rules do not provide enough direction.

It's further muddied by "general consensus." Some RPG players might argue that rules themselves are a "consensus." If it said "we offer the listed times as a baseline," that gives the GM an idea that they can make it slower or faster. If they said "but the listed times will work for most campaigns," then you get the idea that the times are the standard.
« Last Edit: <08-06-20/1701:02> by 0B »

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9619
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #10 on: <08-06-20/1714:56> »
And for most campaigns, those training times work just fine.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #11 on: <08-06-20/1738:42> »
And for most campaigns, those training times work just fine.
u wot m8

We're talking about rules where for a from-chargen mage to initiate and then raise their Magic to 7 takes 16 months.

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
« Reply #12 on: <08-06-20/1740:23> »
On the other hand, "most" of the conversation I have seen online or been part of in person (before the plague) voiced opinion to the opposite, stating dislike for the length of both the suggested training times as well as lack of concrete rules.

More on topic, Anticipation itself is a terrible mechanic and the best option for it balance wise would be just getting tossed, so the SRM "nerf" suits me just fine.
« Last Edit: <08-06-20/1742:25> by Lormyr »
"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

0B

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 150
  • Be seeing you
« Reply #13 on: <08-06-20/2018:33> »
And for most campaigns, those training times work just fine.

Whether this is true or not, that's not what the author said. They were imprecise, and thus unclear.

And then there was the thing with GelWeave in Firing Squad- the way I read it, the rule seemed clear: the penalty is based on how much damage the GelWeave resists, minus one. But now it looks like it's going to be errata'd, so that the penalty is based on the total DV (Not "resisted" DV), minus one. And apparently that matches the authors intent better.

I doubt the author intended for anticipation to be so abusable. But what they said did not match what they intended. This pattern of writing in SR is annoying. When a rulebook has a lot of specific mechanics that cover nearly every aspect of play, the rules must be clear.

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9619
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #14 on: <08-07-20/0252:09> »
I must admit I have no idea what exactly the point you're trying to make is and what Anticipation has to do with training times, given how one is guidelines and the other is meant to be descriptive.

Training times are guidelines. They're explicitly stated to be so. People went BERSERK on them. Literally. They repeatedly argued they proved SR6 was crap, which is of course nonsense given how they're advice in a limited word count section which suffices for any table also following other guidelines in the book. So why would CGL risk producing downtime guidelines, when those same people would just blow up at those? Sounds like a waste of cash to hire writers and an editor just to get people to go 'SEE SR6 SUCKS they're even trying to dictate downtime now!'. MAYBE if people had applied common sense instead of flame tactics... But instead they ruined things for all of us.

Anticipation, meanwhile, suffers from the fact that English is a shitty language. Most of all, it suffers from Firing Modes. There are multiple ways to parse those, which led to various ways of Anticipation, which causes the problem.
I know how I parse those rules. And under that parsing, which uses the absence of a statement in its logic and as such is tough to follow and not everyone agrees with it, it works out just fine except if a player really insists on trying to break the system. But it needs a single extra support statement to be explicit, and the way SRM parses the rules instead might be a way I disagree with, but it does a small sacrifice to prevent a greater excess.

One last note: you said SRM guidelines. But you quote a hard rule instead. That's not a guideline. If you want to continue the debate, I'm going to need a glossary first, because it seems you're interpreting specific words differently and falling over those, making it impossible to figure out what exactly your point is supposed to be. You turning my response about downtime into a big rant about Anticipation is perfect evidence of that.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!