Shadowrun v4 - Your Experience

[cignus_pfaccari]

Really? I guess it just comes down to the way the games we played in have been GMed, because your experiences just don't match mine. Actual soldiers (not goons with assault rifles, professional troops - with military-grade weapons, ammo and armor, and the training to use them) would be a very serious threat in any game I played in.

Also, "troops" are unlikely to be unmodified. Real world Western militaries spend vast sums of money on training and equipping their soldiers now, and there's no reason for that to change in the setting, especially since the prices for most enhancements are relatively cheap. Smartlinks and other low-Essence mods are likely for combat soldiers in major military nations (UCAS/CAS/Sioux/Japan), and likely most corp armies, and elite forces are likely to get more. This is even more likely now in SR4, with the eyeware being available in contact lens or goggle form.

Now, standard rentacops are not likely to be modified, but that's not what was being talked about.

Brad

 

[GlassJaw]

I have quite a bit of experience with SR 1-3 (especially 3) and from what I've seen, people who play/played SR3 fell into 2 camps: those that were uber-hardcore about every rulebook, number, tweak, mechanic, etc and those that played more fast and loose with the rules.

The games I played in were definitely the latter, which is probably why we like SR4. Our games were a bit more focused towards story and investigation but we certainly enjoyed a good firefight as well.

For the hardcore Shadowrun rules junky, I can understand the feeling that things were "taken away". For me, I welcomed the rules "cleanup". We could still tell the exact same stories with the same level of immersion and our characters could do everything in SR4 that they did with SR3 except it was easier and the rules made sense. This is how I would define "streamlined".

Note that easier in this case does not mean "dumbed down", "limited in options", or not fun.

 

[mmu1]

I have quite a bit of experience with SR 1-3 (especially 3) and from what I've seen, people who play/played SR3 fell into 2 camps: those that were uber-hardcore about every rulebook, number, tweak, mechanic, etc and those that played more fast and loose with the rules.

Maybe. I certainly don't like "playing fast and loose with the rules" - if I choose a system to play, I want the (ideally, unique) game experience it provides, and I like to learn how to play the game well. (since as far as I'm concerned, the "game" part is just as important as the "role-playing" bit, if not more)

If I want to play something with simple rules, I'll pick a rules-lite system to begin with, instead of dumbing down a more complex one. I'm not going to, for example, go to the trouble of creating a SR3 or GURPS character only to play in a game where all the intricacies of the system then get hand-waved. (and it's pretty much why I have given up on trying to play GURPS - it's a great system, if you actually use it, but unfortunately, no one I ever met when looking for a GURPS game seems to actually want to learn all of even the basic ruleset)

 

[Henry]

Tests that vary in both the TN and the number of successes is too cumbersome for 99% of the players and GMs out there IMNSHO. TN mods are just too coarse.

In fact, that one thing was what kept me away from jumping into Shadowrun whole-heartedly was that X/Y axis of success. Loved the world setting, just did not like the system. The only game of SR3 I played was at a con, and the GM ran it very loosely; if it had been run by the book, I don't think it would have been fun for me at all. My personal standard is: If I have to do too much calculation on die rolls, it takes me "out of game" too much to be worried. If I'm more concerned about the die result (OK, that's 4 4's, 2 5's, and 1 6... and the TN is 7, with my +1 mod, so that's...) than what the die result means (If I get 3 5's or 6's, then I avoid the Grenade!) , that's too much number-crunching for me. It's not like it's rocket science or anything; it just breaks my suspense of disblief by just a fraction too much.

In fact, if I do get into Shadowrun 4e eventually, I'm probably going to buy some of those 6-siders with the minus, blank, and + faces on them to make it even more immediate.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Also, "troops" are unlikely to be unmodified. Real world Western militaries spend vast sums of money on training and equipping their soldiers now, and there's no reason for that to change in the setting, especially since the prices for most enhancements are relatively cheap. Smartlinks and other low-Essence mods are likely for combat soldiers in major military nations (UCAS/CAS/Sioux/Japan), and likely most corp armies, and elite forces are likely to get more. This is even more likely now in SR4, with the eyeware being available in contact lens or goggle form.

Now, standard rentacops are not likely to be modified, but that's not what was being talked about.

Brad

Well, if the platoon consists of cybernetically augmented NPCs, the original point is moot - neither in SR4 nor in SR3 this fight would be easy, because your enemies just have the same advantages that you do.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Really? I guess it just comes down to the way the games we played in have been GMed, because your experiences just don't match mine. Actual soldiers (not goons with assault rifles, professional troops - with military-grade weapons, ammo and armor, and the training to use them) would be a very serious threat in any game I played in.

Same thing with target numbers, even someone really twinked-out still ought to have to deal with the +4 TN for cover often enough that - while TNs of 3 or 4 will be common - you can't count on them. (and things get worse if you actually enforce all the mods for movement, switching targets, etc.)

Finally, I have to admit shotguns never entered into the equation, because, again, in all the games I played in the GM had either always house-ruled the ridiculous choke/spread rules, or everyone at the table agreed to unilaterally suspend any use of shot rounds...

Well, we house-ruled Shotguns, too, naturally.
But I remember one great problem that all our SR gamemasters encountered - really applying all the modifiers that apply to a combat was just a headache.

Player: "I start running towards the next cover and fire my HK 227 at the Knight Errant Soldier on the left side of the door. Short Burst - I have a GasVent III and Strength 6, so I don't care about the first 3 points of recoil. What do I need?"
D: "Ok, submachine gun, that put's it at medium range, so target number 5. -2 for smartgun, that's 3, +2 for bad lightning, that's 5, +2 for running, that's TN 7 *target number begins exploding* +2 for the targets cover and then you're injured, that's *DM's head explodes in anticipation of the other 24 target numbers he will need to calculate before the first rounds - 3 seconds of combat - have ended)

I remember there was a shadowrun fan site where one described the "rule of 4". "If you don't know what the TN should be, just have it at 4 and use the number of successes to describe the result." That's essentially what they did in SR 4. And it works a lot better this way...

 

[kigmatzomat]

Also, "troops" are unlikely to be unmodified. Real world Western militaries spend vast sums of money on training and equipping their soldiers now, and there's no reason for that to change in the setting, especially since the prices for most enhancements are relatively cheap. Smartlinks and other low-Essence mods are likely for combat soldiers in major military nations (UCAS/CAS/Sioux/Japan), and likely most corp armies, and elite forces are likely to get more. This is even more likely now in SR4, with the eyeware being available in contact lens or goggle form.

While I think that "first world" militaries will be keen to equip troops with external gear, I doubt they'll go whole hog for implants. Implants are a "sunk" cost into a particular troop while equipment can be reassigned. It also will entail a "retraction" cost to remove any military-only gear. Lots of personnel only serve a tour or two. Conversely, career troops have an unpleasant upgrade cycle as they repeatedly go under the knife. Plus in combat zones cyber is an item of value that increases the likelihood of kidnapping or bodysnatching.

I'd say that only special forces (intentionally using small letters to denote all of the special combat teams) would be equipped with augmentation and even then it would be as subtle and passive as possible. Digestive expansion, sleep regulator and enhanced articulation are the big ones, IMO. Digestive expansion is handy on long ops where the troops could carry unconventional rations (e.g. high calorie "sawdust"). Sleep regulators mean more quality operational hours and enhanced articulation makes them better runners/sneaks/climbers/jumpers/swimmers/etc, the specific stuff that sf tends to do on the way to/from the "meat" of the mission.

Some particular MOSs might wind up with implants, but they should generally be the smallest percentages of the force. Pilots, for instance, would get VCRs and jacks but active duty pilots only comprise about 3% of the U.S. Air Force. Ground forces, like armored divisions, tend to have a similarly low ratio of front line combat vehicles vs. support. At one point in time, the US 1st Armored Division had ~13,500 troops and only 200 tanks and 200 bradleys. They had another ~6200 other vehicles but the bulk of those would be supply vehicles (M1s get about 2mpg and suck down a lot of fuel on idle) and repair. Giving every tank/IFV two VCR equipped troops still only nets us about 5% active duty (MOS) riggers.

 

[Thanee]

But there is also one glaring error in the rule system:
Initiative
Multiple actions per round simply doesn't work. It sucked in SR2, where slower characters didn't get to act before the extra actions from the others were resolved , and it sucked in SR 3, because slow characters still had to wait eternities till the cybered-up where done.
Multiple Initiative passes simply create to much imbalances.
My "hotfix": Instead of getting extra passes, people get extra (automatic) hits on their Initiative/Reaction checks. The second step would be reducing the cost of Reflex Boosting cyberware, powers and spells. Maybe 1 point of Essence/Power Point per pass/hit)
Still powerful, but not as extreme as before.

IMHO, SR4 is the first time, where the initiative with multiple actions works.

It sure is a big advantage, but it's totally possible to be decent in combat (not superb) without any cyber or magic to enhance your IPs.

And there is always the option to use drugs or Edge to improve IP.
Enough to make the ganger pose a threat to a shadowrunner.

Bye
Thanee

 

[mmu1]

Well, we house-ruled Shotguns, too, naturally.
But I remember one great problem that all our SR gamemasters encountered - really applying all the modifiers that apply to a combat was just a headache.

Player: "I start running towards the next cover and fire my HK 227 at the Knight Errant Soldier on the left side of the door. Short Burst - I have a GasVent III and Strength 6, so I don't care about the first 3 points of recoil. What do I need?"
D: "Ok, submachine gun, that put's it at medium range, so target number 5. -2 for smartgun, that's 3, +2 for bad lightning, that's 5, +2 for running, that's TN 7 *target number begins exploding* +2 for the targets cover and then you're injured, that's *DM's head explodes in anticipation of the other 24 target numbers he will need to calculate before the first rounds - 3 seconds of combat - have ended)

I remember there was a shadowrun fan site where one described the "rule of 4". "If you don't know what the TN should be, just have it at 4 and use the number of successes to describe the result." That's essentially what they did in SR 4. And it works a lot better this way...

Well, we actually play with all those modifiers and it works for everyone involved. Like anything else, all it takes is familiarity.

Though I do have to admit that I frankly don't get people who can't (or can't be bothered to) keep a few numbers straight, like in that simple example you posted.

Blackjack's "rule of 4" is IMO (no offense) crap - it's fine once in a while when you just don't want to bog down a game looking up the TN for something obscure that doesn't matter a great deal, but the way he described using it meant he'd substitute it for anything and everything he didn't want to bother to remember. Not my kind of GM...

 

[Vocenoctum]

Well, we actually play with all those modifiers and it works for everyone involved. Like anything else, all it takes is familiarity.

Though I do have to admit that I frankly don't get people who can't (or can't be bothered) to keep a few numbers straight, like in that simple example you posted.

The thing I always wondered about with the casual players, was why bother catering to the guy that bums the core from someone else and plays? The die-hard number cruncher that buys every book... that's your customer!

I had players in Battletech that couldn't bother to learn how to add modifiers, they were casual players and never bought anything. I certainly don't think "simplifying" or "streamlining" battletech would have helped the matter. They did care to learn rules.