D&D 4E OT: Shadowrun 4E announced

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Ah, yes, open tests... That´s definitely a mechanic I won´t miss.
It´s probably similar to AD&D and using both D20 and percentile for resolving tests...
(Regarding the stealth example, a oppossed tests with the base target number of 4 seems to be the better method. But please don´t use "double-rewards" by setting the target number the opposing ones skill/attribute level... )

I agree that Deckers and Riggers combined into Hackers is not the same thing as in the previous editions. But I think it will probably make the game a lot more playable, and I can perfectly live with it, I think. (Let´s wait for the actual implementation for a final decision )
A part of this merging did already happen in the last edition(s), with the option of the rigger to "hack" into building security systems...

It would be nice if the different subsystems ("Ordinary Combat", Decking, Rigging, Magic) would be streamlined. Augmented Reality indicates to me that it´s exactly what they are doing now, since the basis seems to be very similar to the astral plane.
I wonder if they find a way to make the vehicle rules easier to handle.

I don´t know if the storyline changes will be good, especially since I am not too fond of some of the new storyline. But maybe they are actually trying to "fix" it.

I wonder if they will find a way to fix a few of the problems I always had with SR - mainly that target number modifiers had such a nearly inpredictable effect. If you were even moderately wounded, you had a good chance of failing even the most basic tests. (A good reason to get Trauma Dampener, Damage Compensators or other ways of Pain Resistance)

---

For the "old" D20 vs D6 Shadowrun discussion:
1) There will probably never be a official D20 Shadowrun version.
2) I would probably prefer a d6 Shadowrun over a D20 Shadowrun, IF the d6 Shadowrun would have less problems then the current one. (This is obviously a very subjective thing, not everybody cares about the things I or my gaming group percieve as problems)
3) A D20 Shadowrun is possible. Classes, levels, HD, character generator, races and cyberware are no problem with the existing D20 Modern and D20 Future rules. The difficult part is the magic system and the decking system.
The HP system seems to break down a bit in regard to drain (if used as damage) and the astral plane. I think there is way to make it work, but it is not easy.
In the end, to have a good D20 Shadowrun, you will need the same playtesting other games (like the orignal d6 Shadowrun or D&D) have gone through. And that´s why it will probably never be finalized by anyone, unless it would become the official Shadowrun version (and for that, see point 1) )

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I don´t know if the storyline changes will be good, especially since I am not too fond of some of the new storyline. But maybe they are actually trying to "fix" it.

Whatever you might think of the new storylines, I think the fact that they made the Immortal Elves a lot less annoying deserves applause.

Mind you, they didn't write them out of the setting entirely (and they do have their place) - but the the recent troubles in the two Tirs show that they are neither all-powerful nor all-knowing, and that they can be out-thought and outmaneuvered by corporations run by (gasp!) mere humans.

In the end, they are relics of a past age - powerful and knowledgeable certainly, but they have a hard time keeping up with all the technological innovations that have become a second nature to many street kids. The Sixth World, for all its myriad problems, is a new age full of surprises and possibilities, and even a dragon might have a hard time keeping track of everything...

 

[Henry]

To a 16-years old, the tech from SR1/2 is so outdated and old it's not even fun wearing it for the retro-flavour, and some of the concepts that make deckers so dear to those with 10 years of SR-experience under their belt are pretty much alien to kids that grew up in a wireless world for the last 5-6 years.

D&D 3E / Shadowrun 4E -- this ain't your daddy's D&D / Shadowrun...

Watching Dumpshock today is like watching Eric's Forums and the WotC newsgroups in early 2000.

Doesn't Diaglo play in 3e games occasionally?

Assuming he and his fellow players are telling the truth, he owns more 3E products than I do.

 

[apesamongus]

It's also NOT useful for an opposed roll. Opposing skills directly against a fixed target number gets you more accurate results, since the better person will usually win, but it's not guaranteed that they will.

Define "accurate" in this context.

And a higher skill will "usually" beat a lower skill with open rolls as well. It's just a question of whether a 6 beats a 2 99% of the time or 60% of the time or something in between. A system that has both (or more) options offers more flexability (to the GM) than one that shoehorns all possible tasks into a single probability spread with a single unified mechanic that may or may not be appropriate in a given instance.

More possible ways of generating randomness using the same basic stat block are always good.

 

[GlassJaw]

Watching Dumpshock today is like watching Eric's Forums and the WotC newsgroups in early 2000.

And by that I assume you mean insane.

I like Dumpshock and all but some of those people need a new cause or something. It's a lot to take sometimes.

 

[Michelle Lyons]

And by that I assume you mean insane.

I like Dumpshock and all but some of those people need a new cause or something. It's a lot to take sometimes.

I just do my best to keep from commenting. It's a lot more amusing/interesting that way. I've been attempting to do the same here, but sadly Vocenoctem managed to accidentally bait me upthread. My bad. There's just no way to respond and have it turn out well when people are upset and really predisposed to be annoyed with whatever you say by association... and right now, that's happening a lot. Change is never easy, and no matter what you do there will be some who won't like it, as it doesn't suit their vision of the game or their style of play. That's perfectly valid, but doesn't make the changes any easier.

The threats/comments involving personal violence are always entertaining, anyway.

 

[Henry]

I just do my best to keep from commenting. It's a lot more amusing/interesting that way. I've been attempting to do the same here, but sadly Vocenoctem managed to accidentally bait me upthread. My bad. There's just no way to respond and have it turn out well when people are upset and really predisposed to be annoyed with whatever you say by association...

I'm just glad you and the others don't let it get to you. Ryan Dancey said he used to save the best rants and death threats, and post them to his office door for the staff to read - everything from Hitler comparisons onward.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I liked them for Stealth.

I liked them better for Stealth than a resisted roll because it cut down on the number of tests, given a couple guards and a few runners. I'm not married to the idea though, so I doubt it'll affect the system.

I much preferred regular tests - then you could have a guard "see something, but not sure what" on a single success, all the way up to "yep, I definately saw X, the shadowrunner, heading towards the secret room". With an open test, you just get this binary thing...

Like I said earlier in the threads, Hackers are more like Riggers than Deckers. They folded the computer stuff into the Rigger and ditched them too. The "lose me totally" thing is more based on the lack of readability for the SR rules IMO. Rigging was generally easy though, do you mean the vehicle combat rules?

The rigging rules were a mess. Maneuver scores, screwing up the initiative of everyone in the vehicle, ECM rules, sensor assisted-gunnery rules, MIJI rules...

It was a mess unless all you wanted to do was drive a car in a non-combat situation.

Now, removing deckers from the game and adding their place to Riggers, and renaming the symbiote a "hacker" is somehow not removing the deckers.

It's kinda not - it's almost at the same level as adding a protocol emulation unit to a decker - now he can rig too.

Besides - personally I never saw a PC decker. They were always "A guy who does X and also decks". And making a rigger-decker was by far the most popular choice, for good reasons (the requirements for both were basically identical - good computer skill, high mental stats, not much else needed).

and my responce would be "I permanetly burn a point of good karma and buy a success ". I had a char toast 4 points GK once to jump onto the roof of a speeding citymaster from a highway overpass. He survived too.

My response as a GM would be "you can't - you need to have a success on a test before you can buy successes on it". Then we'd look at the karma rules for open tests, and realise that karma ONLY LETS YOU REROLL ONE DIE ON AN OPEN TEST. Ouch. Change that rule for starters.

Taking the decker and making it wireless is converting it into a wizard? Is this just more idle speculation about a system that little is currently known about? If you have more details about the decker/hacker transition, by all means sharre.

Actually, deckers already could be wireless if they were good enough to hack satellite networks, and given the bandwidth supposedly available over a rigger's network, they could also just have a drone jacked in, and deck through that if you paid close attention.

It was all there, it just depended on how much of it your GM understood.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Besides - personally I never saw a PC decker. They were always "A guy who does X and also decks". And making a rigger-decker was by far the most popular choice, for good reasons (the requirements for both were basically identical - good computer skill, high mental stats, not much else needed).

Heh, and I saw at least three...no, make that four, and played at least one myself. Pure deckers, too. And we always had a blast.
It's that thing about varying mileages, I guess.

Actually, deckers already could be wireless if they were good enough to hack satellite networks, and given the bandwidth supposedly available over a rigger's network, they could also just have a drone jacked in, and deck through that if you paid close attention.

It was all there, it just depended on how much of it your GM understood.

Exactly. Goes for every game, and is always true. It always depends on how much of the rules the players and the GM understand.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Of course I get it. There are some folks that begrudge evolution. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if it don't work so good, don't fix it. And in fact, if it is broken, I still don't want it fixed.

And if it works perfectly fine, don't change it because it personally irks you.

You choose to view any change from the hacker you're used to as a degradation that causes something precious to be lost. You won't acknowledge things can be actually be changed for the better. Stasis is good.

Not in the least. I didn't protest the wireless links for Decks in Matrix at all. I understand that computers are getting smaller, but that's one scale of the system. On the other end, the size is staying the same and the power is getting bigger instead. The PDA doesn't make the Laptop obsolete, let alone the Mainframe. So the presence of a Cyberdeck doesn't bug me. It takes a lot of power to run VR on the SR level. Or so we can assume for the feel of the setting.

So far it sounds like what's gone are clunky rules and a very cumbersome restriction on their playability. If your conception of the decker was defined by clunkiness and immobility, then I guess it is dead. May it rest in peace.

Hackers aren't deckers. They're riggers. Deckers haven't changed, the Matrix changed and went to Riggers instead of deckers. Now Deckers are dead.

3e wizards now have the capability to cast spells even if they take damage. They get feats every five levels now. They can take feats that let them cast spells without verbal, somatic, or material components. In short, they've changed...for the better. They've evolved. What's to resent?

If you don't see the difference between Wizards and Sorcerers on the fundamental level, then I can't persuade you differently. Suffice to say that Hackers are a bigger change than adding a feat.