d20 Shadowrun conversions - would it be worth it?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If it's lethality for lethality's own sake, I would agree that the status is wrong. However, in a gritty setting, players who are actually afraid to walk into gunfire because they know the result would be very bad is a good thing. As written, even with MDT, I have yet to see that happen in d20. Hence my tongue-in-cheek comments about the 50 cal crit and palming the grenade.

Shadowrun did never make me feel afraid to walk into a gunfire. Equipped with a good armor and some cyberware, and using my combat and karma pool wisely, I knew how to avoid lethal blows, and dish out severe damage against my opponents.
The only difference in lethalness might be that you can be killed with one very lucky shot - but in fact you can´t, the moment when they added trauma dampener and maybe some pain resisance ware/spells/powers, a healthy person became unkillable with the first shot.
Okay, maybe it seems like powergaming, I don´t want to discount the possiblity - probably it is. But the point is, you can do it, and reduce the lethalness greatly.
Okay, if suddenly the opponents appear with using Antimaterial Rifles and Sniper weapons, my precaution might prove worthless. But even then, the enemy should better be well trained, because if he fails, the next actions of the PCs will certainly kill him (and now they got that nice weapon). And that´s not a lot different from D20 Modern. If suddenly a 1st level Strong Hero fires a .50 gun at the characters, he will most likely miss, but if he hits, there is a good chance for an MDT check. If he is equally experienced, his chances are even better..

And speaking of lethalness, in the books it seems failry common for spellcasters to suffer from drain. They seemed to be extremely incapable in their job, because any starting character in Shadowrun can avoid it extremely easy (with or without - once again -. trauma dampener). Just choose a sensible power "setting", and use the effective spells (why manabolt if stunbolt can do mostly the same, plus has an reduced drain difficulty?). And don´t forget the Manapool.
"Romane sind keine Regelwerke" (a common phrase on the FanPro sites, but usally in response to unreasonable events in books), but I wonder if the intended feel of the setting shouldn´t make drain a viable danger?

Depends on who's playing and who's running. SR combat flies for me and my guys. Conversely, I've seen d20 combat crawl because of all the interminable addition of options, thirty-eleven different feats in play, AoOs abounding, etc.

But on the other hand, the SR system lacks the options - both in melee as in ranged combat. (but the latter is true for D20 Modern, too) The only think it does have are dozens of modifiders to your attack roll, but that´s not fun.

Even at 10, my grenade example wouldn't trigger an MDT check(2d6 damage for a grenade -- yeah, right, whatever). And a decent level character with a good CON (especially say, oh, a Troll) simply isn't going to fail that Fort save. Maybe my perspective is a little harsh, but a 50 cal round (especially with a crit or maxed damage) should drop an unarmored person, period. The mechanics don't support that assumption, and according to interviews with the designers, were never intended to do so.

3d6 (average 10.5) for a 40mm grenade (launcher) or 4d6 (average 14) for an fragmentation grenade, reflex save for half (if you want to allow one). And you can´t kill yourself with a grenade in SR unless you are already severely damaged. The standard damage is S, that won´t kill you, even if the DM decides that no armor applies and the dice decide to roll extremely low so you gather no success.
In d20 Modern, there is at least a chance that you go down and then bleed to death.
In real life, grenade explosions sometimes seem quite unpredictable.
There was a real life incident in Germany a few years ago where a person was attacked with a hand grenade (and I believe it was within an enclosed space - a van), and he survived (severely injured). On the other hand, people can be killed by grenades exploding 10 meters away. This kind of randomization is very difficult to model in an RPG. (And then you have to wonder if rolling XdY dice for damage is perhaps better than a mostly static DC and damage value...)

I'll I think at this point, I'm pretty much going to remove myself from the debate. My opinion is pretty well set, and nothing anyone has said here (though some people have made some pretty cogent arguments) has swayed me in the slightest. That being said, my continued naysaying wouldn't really be constructive to the thread. I like SR's mechanics, they work for me, and they fit my idea of the setting. IMHO, D20 doesn't. End of discussion.

Just because neither you nor me will change our minds the discussion can still be useful for those that haven´t made up their mind.
And discussing is often a fun mental excercise

Ultimately, my metric for how much I want to use and play a system comes in two parts: (1) Does the system itself work for or against my suspension of disbelief and immersion in the game as a story. There are systems that meet that standard for me, and d20 simply isn't one of them. I play d20 frequently, but generally because its what my circle of friends run (with me running a lot of the non-d20 stuff). I don't run it unless forced, as a rule. I can never muster the enthusiasm for it above that of a board game (the exception being Mutants and Masterminds -- but that's pretty far removed from standard d20). Everytime I try, the mechanics grind my suspension to a shuddering halt.

A good metric, it applies to me as well. It´s subjective, but FUN is subjective... And that´s what RPGs should do, after all...

(2) Do I need an extravagant number of house rules to make the system as a system palatable for me? I've never needed more than 1/2 a page of house rules for the SR rules set (since 3rd ed anyway -- earlier editions called for a little more), and that's mostly to hit really little details. The last time I was cajoled into running standard d20, my house rules weighed in at 15-20 pages. Including some fundamental tweaks. Reviewing them I decided, "Umm..just pick another game guys. Really." :\

As point (1), a good "rule", and exactly the reason why I don´t like the d6 system.

 

[Longshadow]

Yeah, I know I said I was out of the discussion, but Ridcully made some points I can't not respond to (and here's hoping he leaves that crossbow in his big ole wizardly hat).

Shadowrun did never make me feel afraid to walk into a gunfire. Equipped with a good armor and some cyberware, and using my combat and karma pool wisely, I knew how to avoid lethal blows, and dish out severe damage against my opponents.

We've played some very different SR, chummer. I've routinely seen combat engines (i.e. high combat skills + high combat pool) punch damage overspill several boxes past deadly -- and Trauma Dampers only convert one box of damage, so they're impact didn't help. And that's with pistols and assault rifles -- nobody wants to charge the guy holding the Panther AC . Even a munchkinized Troll taking a head shot from something that starts at 14D, before staging, goes down. Experiences vary, I guess.

And speaking of lethalness, in the books it seems failry common for spellcasters to suffer from drain. They seemed to be extremely incapable in their job, because any starting character in Shadowrun can avoid it extremely easy (with or without - once again -. trauma dampener). Just choose a sensible power "setting", and use the effective spells (why manabolt if stunbolt can do mostly the same, plus has an reduced drain difficulty?). And don´t forget the Manapool.

I think most of the book characters weren't ....uummm..."optimized" for gameplay. But then, the only times I've seen drain really start to accrue were with casting big honking spells, or casting a whole lot of spells in rapid succession, or when the mage started off already wounded. Most mage players simply design characters that can perform their schtick without falling over quickly -- just a truism of gaming.

"Romane sind keine Regelwerke" (a common phrase on the FanPro sites, but usally in response to unreasonable events in books), but I wonder if the intended feel of the setting shouldn´t make drain a viable danger?

"Novels aren't rulebooks" -- Is that right? Woo-Hoo! Two years of the language in college and I finally get to use it in an informal setting.

I would tend to agree, as far as standard rules go, but they do define the color. One of the few house rules I have is that combat spells and damaging manipulation spells, unless specifically designed otherwise, always have an obvious visual display -- because that's the way it shows up in the novels. Technically, by the written rules, a powerful enough mage could cast a spell and everybody could fail their perception check to notice the casting, which I've never liked. Oh, one of my other rules is that Trauma Dampers (a piece of equipment you apparently like ) don't affect Drain Resistance. As far as I'm concerned, standard drain is fatigue, and trauma dampers only clamp down on pain signals and consequent responses. Yeah, I'm a bastard, but I viewed the TD as a metagamers wet-dream and acted accordingly.

The standard damage is S, that won´t kill you, even if the DM decides that no armor applies and the dice decide to roll extremely low so you gather no success.

In 3rd ed, grenade damage is staged by its own power rating and then modified by distance from the target. 10 dice against a 4 TN and you get very nasty grenades. Add in that most people skimp on impact armor in favor of ballistic ratings and grenades are not the target's friend. My military-type friends tell me they view that as an acceptable model for a grenade at close range (my first and longest playing SR group were two former Army Intelligence Officers, a policeman who went on to join a SWAT team, and a battle re-enactment fanatic who went on to get his PhD in History concentrating on uses of American Military power -- you talk about making me hone my tactical skills. Grueling, but much fun!)

But on the other hand, the SR system lacks the options - both in melee as in ranged combat. (but the latter is true for D20 Modern, too) The only think it does have are dozens of modifiders to your attack roll, but that´s not fun.

Whoa, but do we disagree here. SR doesn't have a carefully enunciated chart of combat interaction spelled out in rule terms, but that's because it doesn't have to, IMO. I can describe a fairly complicated fight in general terms and the system is more than flexible enough to accomodate all of the actions involved without having to stretch, and with only a glance at some modifiers that might apply here and there. I give my DMs conniptions by coming up with combat actions all the time in d20 that have them scratching their heads, rummaging through the rulebooks, and then making serious judgment calls. The necromancer who had his zombies pick up opponents and then walk off cliffs with them, or the uber-strong fighter who could throw heavily armored dwarfs ridiculous distances as improvised weapons both spring readily to mind as examples. (Hey, I already conceeded the bastardliness, guys. )

Just because neither you nor me will change our minds the discussion can still be useful for those that haven´t made up their mind.
And discussing is often a fun mental excercise

Well, yeah, go and be all reasonable then why don't ya?


Oh, and apologies to everybody for what could easily be seen as threadjacking. Ridcully, old boy, we can continue this by e-mail if everybody would like us to get out of their way.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, I think we are near enough to the topic to say we aren´t threadjacking ...
We could possibly continue the discussion by e-mail, but as I said - we both will never agree on the topic, so the only point is to show other readers the possibly views

We've played some very different SR, chummer. I've routinely seen combat engines (i.e. high combat skills + high combat pool) punch damage overspill several boxes past deadly -- and Trauma Dampers only convert one box of damage, so they're impact didn't help. And that's with pistols and assault rifles -- nobody wants to charge the guy holding the Panther AC . Even a munchkinized Troll taking a head shot from something that starts at 14D, before staging, goes down. Experiences vary, I guess.

I agree, that´s quite deadly, but it is not a common situation. If the DM decides to attack the characters with such weapons, he either wants to make a point (like: you have gone to far) or has designed the situation so the characters can solve the problem...

In 3rd ed, grenade damage is staged by its own power rating and then modified by distance from the target. 10 dice against a 4 TN and you get very nasty grenades.

I don´t have my books here (and I only have the German editions, which sometimes contains translations errors) but I remember this being only an optional rule for explosives like C4 / C12, but not for Grenades.
Probably our group is a bit to heavy on the Powergaming side, but I know with these rules in effect, grenades would become the favourite weapon number one, and it would only make the game unplayable...
In fact, grenades were already the favourite weapon of one of our players.
(I would probably still prefer capsule ammunition loaded with Narcojet or Gamma Scopolamin ...)

I must admit, playing Shadowrun with all its weaknesses was and is probably fun, but the longer we played it, the less fun would it become... :/