[Shadowrun] Perfect Crime Edition {Frank Keep Out}

[Seerow]

I don't disagree with anything you're saying right here, but I'm not entirely sure of your exact point either. Dedicated combat characters should have plenty of points/resources to dedicate to being able to out-infiltrate, out-shoot, and so-on the above described character and his or her Guardian Spirit.

My point is that most of the power of being a magician is condensed into two skills, with counterspelling being a nice but passive addition. Thus balancing magicians vs. non magicians under the assumption that mages will be routinely spending points on 3 or 4 other bullshit skills in addition to the good stuff isn't going to do your game balance any favors. Magicians get by not because everything they have is good, but because Spellcasting and Summoning can do a very passable job of imitating other pools at need on top of providing unique effects--Summoning comes out the gate with Task Spirits, Concealment, unfair Will save attacks and proxy warriors while Spellcasting+Magic lets you purchase one pool and then graft new functionality to that pool for 3 bp/5 karma a pop. It can actually be a pretty point efficient way to go about your business. And honestly, I don't really give two shits if some mundo samurai has 15 gun dice to an ork combat summoner's 12, because the difference is frankly rather unlikely to matter, since Shadowrun isn't a game built around death matches with "level appropriate" prime runners.

So how crippling would it be to magicians to have them use a separate skill for each school of magic? ie you get "Combat Spells" and "Manipulation Spells" instead of "Spellcasting"

If you did this, would you want to divide up spirits similarly? Leave them as is? Or do you roll spirits in with spellcasting (So "Combat Spells" lets you summon spirits of the type linked to Combat through your tradition).

[Whipstitch]

I wouldn't recommend tackling things from that angle. For one thing, it's a pretty mighty nerf. And for another, it places an awful lot of importance on how you're divvying up the spell categories, which means you start adopting the problems D&D has with its spell schools--Combat is if anything even narrower than the Evocations school while Manipulation is almost exactly like what you'd get from making Transmutation & Enchantment into one school, albeit it at a lower power level than you see in D&D. I love packing a Direct attack as much as the next guy, but conceptually those schools just aren't playing the same ball game. Really, I'd rather see mundane skills broadened first and foremost--Who gives a shit if the Magician knows Fix or not when the Samurai already fixed the MacGuffin with a tube of nanite super glue? Oh, and the whole thing where magicians are throwing Magic+Skill+doodads while the mundo resists with the worst attribute in the game needs to be fixed.

[Lokathor]

So, a mage casts a Force 5 Stunbolt on a summoned Force 5 spirit unprotected by counterspelling. Magic 5 + Spellcasting 5 = 10 Dice versus Willpower 5. On average, the mage achieves 3.33 hits, which we'll round up to four. On average, the spirit rolls 1.6667 hits, which we'll round down to one.

What is even up with that math there pal.

That's not how you round. You could round normal, or you could round it all down (truncate) or you could round all up (dunno if there's a word for that), but you absolutely should not round .3 up while rounding .6 down. That is very literally the opposite of how rounding works.

[Heisenberg]

I had assumed that was a placeholder and you didn't actually have the damage calculation defined. As written, you have in fact nerfed Stunbolt completely into oblivion. Sure, it doesn't cost any drain, but a complex action that fills in like 4 stun boxes is a joke. And not a good joke. Requiring extraordinary success on an opposed roll to drop a single dude with a complex action is not an ability that matters. At all. You still have the two shot problem hard wired into your bullet attacks, so pretty much anyone can split their complex action into two simples and shoot twice, dropping almost anyone you care to name.

Or a Manaball can easily do 6-12 boxes of damage to like 5-10 guys clustered close enough, regardless of how much body armor they're wearing or how fast they are. That's a lot better than fucking shooting twice, unless you happen to be packing a semi-automatic grenade launcher, and even then the targets get soak rolls and you have to worry about destroying the damn building, which may not be desirable.

Also it's really not going to be that extraordinary an occurrence for a spellcaster's Magic + Spellcasting + Specialization (if any) + Mentor Spirit Bonus (if any) + Focus Bonus (if any) to wrack up five or more net successes against the target's JUST FUCKING WILLPOWER. Stunbolt is still an effective way to non-lethally remove a single target with a single Complex Action. Even if it doesn't get them down in one hit, it'll get them mightily woozy, which might be more than you can accomplish by capping off two shots with an Ares Predator (depending on your shooting skill, the firing conditions, and the target's Reaction, o' course).

I'll be honest: Direct Combat Spells are pretty much exactly where I want them to be. They are one thing I am very unlikely to change.

(As a side note, I'm not sure if you've seen SR5, but in SR5 direct combat spells are about 200% less useful than here, dealing damage equal to net hits times one. They also have more drain, while indirect combat spells actually HAVE a base damage, and less drain than ever before. It's laughably fucked.)

***

@Lokathor: The idea is, it was completely arbitrary rounding convention, but internally consistent (in either case I rounded up for the mage, down for the spirit). I know that as a rule math doesn't work that way, I was just trying to get nice round numbers to work with. Don't worry, IIRC the game itself doesn't round anything that way, not even examples.

So how crippling would it be to magicians to have them use a separate skill for each school of magic? ie you get "Combat Spells" and "Manipulation Spells" instead of "Spellcasting"

If you did this, would you want to divide up spirits similarly? Leave them as is? Or do you roll spirits in with spellcasting (So "Combat Spells" lets you summon spirits of the type linked to Combat through your tradition).

I'd be much more inclined to collapse the various gun-shooty skills into one skill called Firearms and collapse the various stabby-punchy-clubby seals skills into one skill called Close Combat than to divide Spellcasting up into ~five skills based on the types of magic spells available. As a general rule I prefer to seek game balance by making things better, not worse, where possible.

[Username17]

Or a Manaball can easily do 6-12 boxes of damage to like 5-10 guys clustered close enough, regardless of how much body armor they're wearing or how fast they are.

OK, I'm done talking about your project. As long as you steadfastly refuse to know how to math, it's obvious that you aren't going to come up with anything worthwhile.

When people start talking about the nitty gritty of combat numbers, they assume that actual math is going to be used in a way that makes sense. You aren't doing that, which means I have no faith in your designs. This is bullshit and I don't care what you do with it.

-Username17

[Heisenberg]

Your design track record seem to indicate competence enough, but your needlessly abrasive douchebaggery and your rampant one-true-wayism severely limit your utility to the development of this project anyway. So go on, 'git.

As long as you steadfastly refuse to know how to math, it's obvious that you aren't going to come up with anything worthwhile. When people start talking about the nitty gritty of combat numbers, they assume that actual math is going to be used in a way that makes sense.

Oh, by the by, I don't even know what this is fucking supposed to mean. That 3-6 net hits on Magic + Spellcasting vs. Willpower is somehow now a mathematical impossibility? That it's never happened in the history of Shadowrun? Even if that was remotely valid (it's not), I don't know how it would constitute a "steadfast refusal" to know how to math.

Sometimes I feel like I don't even know what fucking universe you're living in.

[Username17]

The thing is: you're being an asshole. When you were claiming that combat spells didn't invalidate banishing, you used this example:

So, a mage casts a Force 5 Stunbolt on a summoned Force 5 spirit unprotected by counterspelling. Magic 5 + Spellcasting 5 = 10 Dice versus Willpower 5. On average, the mage achieves 3.33 hits, which we'll round up to four. On average, the spirit rolls 1.6667 hits, which we'll round down to one. This means the Mage has 3 net hits, dealing six boxes of damage to the spirit. The mage must then resist 2 Drain.

Now, your rounding is completely fucked and your math is bad, but your example character rolls 10 dice and casts a Force 5 spell. But as soon as people pointed out that the spell in your example was bullshit flavored weak sauce, you produced a new example:

Or a Manaball can easily do 6-12 boxes of damage to like 5-10 guys clustered close enough, regardless of how much body armor they're wearing or how fast they are.

This is a thing that can happen, but now we're talking about an example character who rolls sixteen dice and is casting a spell at Force 7 against enemies with a Willpower of 3 and no counterspelling. Do you seriously not see how this is an extremely different set of assumptions of character power and opposition? You don't get to move the goal posts like that without people calling you on your bullshit. Which is why I am calling you on your bullshit: your amazingly shifting goalposts are bullshit.

If you produce a sample character rolling 10 dice to show that an action is not too strong, and then produce a sample character rolling 16 dice to show that the same action is not too weak, you'd better have a fucking good explanation for the difference. You fucking don't. You didn't provide any reasoning at all, you were simply arguing in bad faith.

People who argue in bad faith are not worth discussing things with in a civil or productive manner. Your project is doomed because you suck as a person, kindly go fuck yourself. I've already wasted too much time on this.

-Username17

[Heisenberg]

The thing is: you're being an asshole.

Well you're a fucking piece of shit, kindly stay the fuck out of my thread.

People who argue in bad faith are not worth discussing things with in a civil or productive manner. Your project is doomed because you suck as a person, kindly go fuck yourself. I've already wasted too much time on this.

I've already wasted too much time arguing with you. Seriously, I don't need to deal with your staggeringly complete inability to discuss anything, ever, for five minutes without resorting to vicious ad hominem and shit flinging. I still think you're a smart guy most of the time, Frank, and you're right a lot of the time about this whole game design thing, but that doesn't change the fact that you're the biggest asshole I've ever encountered in the entire sphere of human experience.

I'd love if this was the last exchange we had, but of course I imagine your pathological need to have the last word at all times will bring you roaring back with more bullshit. Please prove me wrong.

This is a thing that can happen, but now we're talking about an example character who rolls sixteen dice and is casting a spell at Force 7 against enemies with a Willpower of 3 and no counterspelling.

The fuck are you even on about?

Ok, I know I said I already wasted enough time on this, but just to make this perfectly clear, to everyone...

A character with 12, not 16, dice in casting spells does 6 damage on average to enemies with Willpower 3 and no Countserspelling. 4 hits on average to their 1, damage = net hits x 2, 3 x 2 equals 6. And why in purple fuck would it have to be a Force 7 spell to score four hits? Or 6 hits for that matter?

So basically, you made that huge a stink over the "-12" part of my "6-12" which seems VERY SELECTIVE of you, like the upper 25% of the number range I provided somehow constituted arguing in bad faith by itself.

That figure wasn't even assuming some kind of fuck-off huge dice pool. It was just acknowledging that occasionally lucky rolls happen. And even six successes (again, not fucking unheard of with 12 dice) would only require a Force 6 spell. And players have Edge, and so on, and so forth.

But I mean, are you really implying that in your experience starting mages with 14 dice in Spellcasting (Combat), thanks to a combat spellcasting focus, a specialization, and a totem bonus, and Magic 5 (7) thanks to a Force 2 Power Focus don't happen? I mean I have seen that shit at my table where no one even really optimizes. Shadowrun does not make it that hard to get a whole fucking bunch of dice if you feel like it getting a whole fucking bunch of dice.

Anyway, Even Joe Average Combat Mage with around 12 dice to throw spells is knocking out half of an average mook's health bar with an average roll and giving them huge wound penalties, which is the important part of my point.

If we're talking about some elite corporate response team who all have Willpower 5 protected by 5 dice of Counterspelling, each? Obviously the average results are very different. But even in SR4 where Stunball/Stunbolt did "fuck you" boxes of damage, it was very possible you wouldn't even get the spells to register a HIT against that type of opposition, depending on dice luck. And that is unchanged in SRPC.

***

Anyone else want to weigh in here? I think I've got Frank's opinion at this point. Direct combat spells are underpowered at damage = net hits x 2. Also, personal insults. Wouldn't mind hearing another opinion.

Also, Matrix Chapter is up here.

[Username17]

The fuck are you even on about?

Ok, I know I said I already wasted enough time on this, but just to make this perfectly clear, to everyone...

A character with 12, not 16, dice in casting spells does 6 damage on average to enemies with Willpower 3 and no Countserspelling. 4 hits on average to their 1, damage = net hits x 2, 3 x 2 equals 6. And why in purple fuck would it have to be a Force 7 spell to score four hits? Or 6 hits for that matter?

So basically, you made that huge a stink over the "-12" part of my "6-12" which seems VERY SELECTIVE of you, like the upper 25% of the number range I provided somehow constituted arguing in bad faith by itself.

Since you are obviously very confused about how math works and have asked me a direct question, I guess I should make this a teaching moment.



When you said "6-12" you were providing a range. Ranges are commonly given in terms of standard deviations. A one standard deviation range (from +σ to -σ) is 68.2% of the data set centered on the average value. A two standard deviation range (from +2σ to -2σ) is 95% of the data set, and a three standard deviation range (from +3σ to -3σ) is 99.7% of the data set. Needless to say, when we're discussing dice mechanics, we almost always talk single sigma ranges, because dice are actually pretty bad at generating rare events having a decidedly finite number of sides.

Now "6-12" in this case refers to between 3 and 6 net hits. The net hits are generated by rolling the caster's dice pool, capping the hits at the force of the spell, and then subtracting the hits of the target on their resistance roll. Now that range is literally fucking impossible unless you have at least Force 6, because of course even if the target rolls no hits in resistance at all you still need your cap to be at least 6 before the 6 net hits is even a thing that can happen.

Now I know now that you were completely pulling numbers right out of your ass with no regard for anything and were therefore arguing in totally bad faith all the way down and still are. But I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt and actually extract what dice pools you were necessarily talking about when you gave a range of net hits. Because this is a solvable problem. And the solution is that you are talking about a 16 die pool casting at Force 7 against a target with a Willpower of 3. Because that is the inputs that generate a 69% chance of falling between 3 net hits and 6 net hits centered on an average of 4.3 net hits.

If you want to do it real quick and dirty rather than tallying up percentages, the average number of net hits is the number of dice on the attacker's side minus the number of dice on the resistance test, all divided by three. The range is usually about .6 times the average to about 1.5 times the average. It's not quite an equal amount up and down from the average because Shadowrun dice have more possible results above the average than below it.

And that, everybody, is how dicepool ranges work.



-Username17

[Lokathor]

I follow how you need 3 to 6 net hits to get 6 to 12 boxes of damage inflicted, and how you'd want 16 dice, but I don't follow how that implies that you need a Force 7 spell instead of a Force 6 one at any point of the process.

You could just roll 6+ hits, cap it at 6, then they might roll 0 hits on defense, right?

[Grek]

Heisenberg, if you actually do want Frank to fuck off and stop giving you advice, edit the words "Frank Keep Out" into the thread title. Otherwise you can suck it up and hear about how standard deviations work.

[Username17]

I follow how you need 3 to 6 net hits to get 6 to 12 boxes of damage inflicted, and how you'd want 16 dice, but I don't follow how that implies that you need a Force 7 spell instead of a Force 6 one at any point of the process.

You could just roll 6+ hits, cap it at 6, then they might roll 0 hits on defense, right?

Sure. But rolling 16 dice, you also might get no hits at all (in fact, on 0.15% of rolls, you will). Lots of things might happen. You roll "out of range" nearly a third of the time, and one standard deviation from the average only covers 4 numbers out of the theoretically possible twenty. So there are in fact, lots of rare events that might happen that collectively add up to the out of range area. If you cap hits at 6, your chances of rolling a 6 fall substantially - only 8 in 27 resistance rolls will allow a 6 to take place. That pushes the chance of rolling 6 net hits lower and makes the 3-6 net hits not cover the 68.2% threshold to be a one standard deviation range.

You could do it with a Force 6 cap rolling only 15 dice against enemies with a Willpower of 1, but I regarded that as being even more dishonest slight of hand than 16 dice at Force 7 against a Willpower of 3. In any case, you aren't getting that range without even higher Forces and even bigger dice pools if enemies have counterspelling or even Willpowers such as Heisenberg described in his previous example.

-Username17

[Aryxbez]

Heisenberg, It's a problem you've seemed to let emotions get the run of you, not addressing points of dishonesty that Frank brought up. Given these are problems to your game with these faulty options. Part of what this addressses is, what are your intentions with combat, Is it to be substantially less deadly, longer, and thusly PC's aren't taking out a foe or more in a single Initiative Pass? (or even...combat round?!)

It's problematic you're unwilling to make major changes that would factually make the game better, and put it in new directions. You're wasting the potential of your project to make piddly changes that don't go far enough. In this part, I am regarding the obsolete Attributes: Strength, Body, Charisma?, and Willpower as all seperate stats as have been discussed prior. Your Opinion means little, when it objectively shows that body is less of a stat when you take away what little it has in the first place (Encumbrance), bringing very few reasoning to have it as a separate "survival stat" like D&D does.

Not only doing skill consolidations on Melee/Ranged skills, but MAKING MORE, also hurts the non-awakened characters more. You should either combine them so PC's have more options, or split up the magic skills, so it's more a nightmare for them to be relevant too.

If not willing to make major strides to improve the game, then your word is like of that Paizo. Where they apparently "Knew" the problems, but weren't willing to accept any actual criticism to change that in any manner. In case you seek doubt to the scope of this project, you did say this in your Original Post:

"you know, I could do a better job of fixing the flaws of SR4 and making a new edition of Shadowrun". So I did.

[TheNotoriousAMP]

Heisenberg, It's a problem you've seemed to let emotions get the run of you, not addressing points of dishonesty that Frank brought up. Given these are problems to your game with these faulty options. Part of what this addressses is, what are your intentions with combat, Is it to be substantially less deadly, longer, and thusly PC's aren't taking out a foe or more in a single Initiative Pass? (or even...combat round?!)

It's problematic you're unwilling to make major changes that would factually make the game better, and put it in new directions. You're wasting the potential of your project to make piddly changes that don't go far enough. In this part, I am regarding the obsolete Attributes: Strength, Body, Charisma?, and Willpower as all seperate stats as have been discussed prior. Your Opinion means little, when it objectively shows that body is less of a stat when you take away what little it has in the first place (Encumbrance), bringing very few reasoning to have it as a separate "survival stat" like D&D does.

Not only doing skill consolidations on Melee/Ranged skills, but MAKING MORE, also hurts the non-awakened characters more. You should either combine them so PC's have more options, or split up the magic skills, so it's more a nightmare for them to be relevant too.

If not willing to make major strides to improve the game, then your word is like of that Paizo. Where they apparently "Knew" the problems, but weren't willing to accept any actual criticism to change that in any manner. In case you seek doubt to the scope of this project, you did say this in your Original Post:

"you know, I could do a better job of fixing the flaws of SR4 and making a new edition of Shadowrun". So I did.

I agree with a lot of the points Frank makes, that being said, had Frank just posted his second to last point (and now you know) first it would have been a lot more useful. You still get some sarcasm so you can feel good about correcting someone who was being a bit stubborn, but the more you piss someone off, the less likely they are going to listen to you. So it basically comes down to shit slinging over something that could have been solved earlier. Start with that standard deviation post and both parties leave the situation better off, Heisenburg gets to improve his game and Frank gets to teach some shit and maybe enjoy a better Shadowrun down the line. I get it, a lot of people here are grognards who've been playing for decades or who've even designed games, that being said, cutting a little slack in tone, but not substance, would make the wealth of experience here a lot more valuable and maybe even influential in the wider sphere of things. Same thing happened with Phone Lobster in my own thread, he brought up some important things, but in such a repulsive manner that it was a chore to actually sift through the crap to find the useful stuff.

[Heisenberg]

As far as I can tell, Frank's entire rage shit explosion was due to me saying 6-12 when I should more properly have said 6-10. I was not considering sigma, or standard deviation. I hereby admit I am not perfect at math, and I would like to apologize for that. Let me just go with a much simpler statement:

Mage (12 Dice) casts Stunball on Goons (Willpower 3). Average roll inflicts six boxes of stun with three net hits. Half of their health bar. Inflicts -3 penalties. Above average roll could inflict up to ten boxes of stun, almost all of their health bar, inflicts -3 penalties. That ain't bad.

Heisenberg, It's a problem you've seemed to let emotions get the run of you, not addressing points of dishonesty that Frank brought up. Given these are problems to your game with these faulty options. Part of what this addressses is, what are your intentions with combat, Is it to be substantially less deadly, longer, and thusly PC's aren't taking out a foe or more in a single Initiative Pass? (or even...combat round?!)

Frank's the one who flew into a retarded trollrage for no good reason. If he had not peppered his posts with nasty vicious insults, I would have received said posts better. "This is the den, fuckers," so I don't expect shit to be sugar coated by any means but it is very hard to parse math instructions when I am being told to go fuck myself every other sentence. And even without the nasty flaming, Frank's math-based statements and arguments were about as clear as mud more than half of the time.

Short version: he should watch to make sure his emotions don't get the run of him. Or emotion, one, caustic rage, which is basically the only emotion Frank has, which is what makes his posts so fucking funny when they're at the expense of other people.

*sigh*

As for my conduct, yes by the standards of most forums it's less than good. But this is the den. If someone threadshits and says "fuck you", you don't whine passive aggressively while hoping for a mod to intercede. You flame right back.

"Is it to be substantially less deadly, longer, and thusly PC's aren't taking out a foe or more in a single Initiative Pass? (or even...combat round?!) "

Taking your question at face value, no, I am not trying to make SRPC less deadly than SR4. Nor am I trying to make it more deadly. My intention is to make direct combat spells no longer a First Order Optimal Strategy (FOO strategy).

I don't know where you get "or even...combat round?" when Stunball can still take out five to ten guys that are standing close enough together in two initiative passes.

It's problematic you're unwilling to make major changes that would factually make the game better, and put it in new directions. You're wasting the potential of your project to make piddly changes that don't go far enough. In this part, I am regarding the obsolete Attributes: Strength, Body, Charisma?, and Willpower as all seperate stats as have been discussed prior. Your Opinion means little, when it objectively shows that body is less of a stat when you take away what little it has in the first place (Encumbrance), bringing very few reasoning to have it as a separate "survival stat" like D&D does.

I'm having trouble understanding all of this, because your mouth is so full of Frank's cock.

In all seriousness, it has in no way shape or form been shown that Strength, Body, Charisma, and Willpower are ALL obsolete attributes. Removing them ALL would leave only Logic, Intuition, Agility, and Reaction which would rip the core right out of the game. And leave you totally unable to learn things about characters like how strong, tough, and/or charismatic they are which is something that I am thinking MOST PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW.

I don't believe ANYONE, even Frank, actually wants to REMOVE Strength, Body, Charisma, and Willpower. That is completely insane.

What has been discussed is MERGING Strength with Body and MERGING Charisma with Willpower. And I am considering it, but it needs more discussion, from more voices.

Not only doing skill consolidations on Melee/Ranged skills, but MAKING MORE, also hurts the non-awakened characters more.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. "Skill consolidation" (presumably of combat skills) would NOT hurt non-awakened characters. Also SRPC does not introduce MORE melee/ranged skills, at all, so again, WHAT?

You should either combine them so PC's have more options, or split up the magic skills, so it's more a nightmare for them to be relevant too.

Again, what? Combining skills does not create more options, and splitting up Spellcasting into "Combat Spellcasting", "Health Spellcasting", etcetera, would be fucking asenine.

If not willing to make major strides to improve the game, then your word is like of that Paizo. Where they apparently "Knew" the problems, but weren't willing to accept any actual criticism to change that in any manner. In case you seek doubt to the scope of this project, you did say this in your Original Post:

"you know, I could do a better job of fixing the flaws of SR4 and making a new edition of Shadowrun". So I did.

Ok. So first off, this is more about REPLACING SR5 than IMPROVING SR4, but there is an element of the latter. I am pretty sure I know and understand correctly a LOT of what is wrong with SR4:

* Direct combat spells and stick and shock ammunition are comically overpowered.
* Cheap gadgets like emotitoys provide overly significant dice pool bonuses.
* Attributes are irrelevant to matrix hacking.
* Hackers can't contribute meaningfully to combat by hacking.
* The Matrix rules in general are confusing and full of serious problems.
* Starting caps on skills and attributes are basically the same, meaning characters have incredibly little room to grow.
* Agility is generally overpowered as an attribute.
* BP/Karma is fiddly, and the system should just use one.
* BP point costs for many things are cocked. Skill Groups shouldn't cost as much as Attributes because they do less.
* Mundane characters have a fixed ceiling on their capabilities/dice pools and for awakened characters, the sky's the fucking limit.

And so on.

But again, I am working on REPLACING SR5 just as much as improving SR4. And in SR5...

When your direct combat spell is successfully cast, it inflicts a number of boxes of damage equal to your net hits on the opposed test.

How do you guys feel about THAT mechanic? I need to repeat, I don't see the way SRPC handles direct combat spells just as having them do less damage than SR4. I see it has having them do TWICE AS MUCH DAMAGE as SR5.

As for ACCEPTING CRITICISM, I am not sure you actually know what criticism is. "Criticism", for starters, can only come from someone who has actually read through my rules draft. Anything else is just "ideas" and "talking about ideas" which is fine--I'm ACCEPTING that also, but it's not "criticism". And also I will respond better to "criticism" that isn't phrased with such a level of indignation it is as though I had just raped the critic's mom.

I agree with a lot of the points Frank makes, that being said, had Frank just posted his second to last point (and now you know) first it would have been a lot more useful. You still get some sarcasm so you can feel good about correcting someone who was being a bit stubborn, but the more you piss someone off, the less likely they are going to listen to you. So it basically comes down to shit slinging over something that could have been solved earlier. Start with that standard deviation post and both parties leave the situation better off, Heisenburg gets to improve his game and Frank gets to teach some shit and maybe enjoy a better Shadowrun down the line. I get it, a lot of people here are grognards who've been playing for decades or who've even designed games, that being said, cutting a little slack in tone, but not substance, would make the wealth of experience here a lot more valuable and maybe even influential in the wider sphere of things. Same thing happened with Phone Lobster in my own thread, he brought up some important things, but in such a repulsive manner that it was a chore to actually sift through the crap to find the useful stuff.

Yeah.

[Red_Rob]

As far as I can tell, Frank's entire rage shit explosion

Frank's the one who flew into a retarded trollrage for no good reason.

And even without the nasty flaming, Frank's math-based statements and arguments were about as clear as mud more than half of the time.

Short version: he should watch to make sure his emotions don't get the run of him.

I'm having trouble understanding all of this, because your mouth is so full of Frank's cock.

I don't believe ANYONE, even Frank

You know, using the forum rules to prevent someone from commenting in a thread and then spending an entire post talking shit about them was specifically called out by fbmf as "in poor taste even by the standards of The Den".

If you want to move on, move on, don't abuse the forum rules to make sure you get the last word.

[Aryxbez]

And even without the nasty flaming, Frank's math-based statements and arguments were about as clear as mud more than half of the time.

Which, understandable, when something's vague, asking for an elaboration is a fair thing to do. Albeit Frank Started, Nice at, First, actually wasn't till page 3, he got fed up in frustration to what was a claim of being unable to do Math (which you have now admitted to the degree of not being the best or "perfect" at it). Which you then made the assumption that he has "one way truism" and is a D-bag, and you're the one whining that he should control his emotions? So then yeah, at that point, as you said, there was some back and forth of insults, then he stopped with most of the insulting (still little bit in there with his observation of saying ye argued in bad faith) for a Math Lesson.

Your response isn't till 10 days later, and it's surprising you're still "angry", at those posts, it gives the notion ye weren't willing to listen to what he had to say in the first place (which would make you look rather dishonest).

Taking your question at face value, no, I am not trying to make SRPC less deadly than SR4. Nor am I trying to make it more deadly. My intention is to make direct combat spells no longer a First Order Optimal Strategy (FOO strategy).

However, as been explained before, it does make it more obsolete strategy compared to simply doubletapping/SMGing a dude. As it'd take twice as long to defeat dude that ye could do in one turn via doubletap/SMGing.

I'm having trouble understanding all of this, because your mouth is so full of Frank's cock.

Not at all, I don't have bias to one person, but to the (Good) Ideas to those persons. That is, if they have good ideas that are conductive to good design, then they are one to take a listen to, and especially implement if it's a genuinely good idea that would work as intended. So as you mentioned issues of 4th edition Shadowrun, I liken to agree to those, as very least some of those are problem I can recognize as holding true (one about toys I could simply look up and confirm for self it needed be for example).

What has been discussed is MERGING Strength with Body and MERGING Charisma with Willpower. And I am considering it, but it needs more discussion, from more voices.

Right, that was what I was referring, and figured you knew that, without having to make assumptions on something I didn't say.

In my own theoretical campaign, one of the houserules was to combine Str+Body, given their similarities, and lack of individual importance as attributes. Notion Str is for "niche" characters, and is dumped most of time, should give some indication to that. I would also support the Cha +Willpower combining, as they are stats that make people sad to have, and/or Willpower doesn't go far enough in resisting spells. So another voice you have acquired, assuming of course you're not cognitive bias based on your assumption that I have fealty to someone's phallic object (sarcasm on the last part by the way).

"Skill consolidation" (presumably of combat skills) would NOT hurt non-awakened characters. Also SRPC does not introduce MORE melee/ranged skills, at all, so again, WHAT?

Mea Culpa, what I meant was that you should Combine skills, as that would help the Non-awakened (Street Sam, Face? and other NOT Magician/Adept/Shaman-etc characters).

Unless there was an update I missed, I find it odd this was mentioned then...

Btw. I hate the exotic weapon skill. Please find another solution. (You allready created the Whip skill and placed it under the Meele Group.)

You already introduced the Whip as a skill, that's already one more Weapon skill WE DIDN'T NEED.

Combining skills does not create more options, and splitting up Spellcasting into "Combat Spellcasting", "Health Spellcasting", etcetera, would be fucking asenine.

...Say what now?, So you're saying, if Blades/Clubs/Ex-Meleewpn/Unarmed/Whips put into a "Melee Combat" skill, it wouldn't then now allow them to wield ALL aformentioned weapon types? That a Blades-user transferred to that, NOW isn't able to have more options to wield Blunt weapons, Unarmed combat, Chainsaws(etc) and Whips???. That if Archery/Automatics/Ex-Rangedwpn/HeavyWeapons/Longarms/Pistols/ThrowingWeapons/Gunnery, put into a "Ranged Combat" Skill, it wouldn't then allow them to wield all those other types of guns? That a Rifle user under this rule suddenly wouldn't be able to wield Bows, LMG's, Pistols, Grenades/throwables, Vehicle mountings, and Flamethrowers (etc)?

Yes, it would be, just as so that you expect granularity of a single weapon based on whether it's "sharp & pointy" or "knobby". Where a literal Street "Samurai" couldn't train with a Bokken, because it's not a blade. Though that's an aside example, all the same it's unfair to non-awakened and you shouldn't continue to punish them when you have the ability to "empower" them.

But again, I am working on REPLACING SR5 just as much as improving SR4. And in SR5...

That's called just playing 4th edition, but if you want a superior Shadowrun experience overall, may as well be making the strides, especially if going beyond just patching.

[Seerow]

Frank's the one who flew into a retarded trollrage for no good reason. If he had not peppered his posts with nasty vicious insults, I would have received said posts better.

What the fuck is up with people this week and not understanding that they are posting on the goddamn Gaming Den not Happy Bunny Fufu Land Forums?

[fectin]

New posters.

Specifically, new posters who are hell bent on making me ashamed of having once called for cutting new posters extra slack.

[Heisenberg]

You know, using the forum rules to prevent someone from commenting in a thread and then spending an entire post talking shit about them was specifically called out by fbmf as "in poor taste even by the standards of The Den".

If you want to move on, move on, don't abuse the forum rules to make sure you get the last word.

No, I was not aware of that actually, sorry. Anyway I'm done now and I have moved on.

New posters.

I'm really not that new. My first post here was in May of last year, and I was lurking for years before that. I will admit I'm not exactly an oldby, fo shizzle. For instance, I didn't know about the above rule, but it makes sense and I'll certainly abide by it.

However, as been explained before, it does make it more obsolete strategy compared to simply doubletapping/SMGing a dude. As it'd take twice as long to defeat dude that ye could do in one turn via doubletap/SMGing.

Yes, but a manaball bypasses the dodge roll, bypasses the damage resistance roll, and can hit three or more targets at once. Which of those things does shooting twice with an Ares Predator do?

Not at all, I don't have bias to one person, but to the (Good) Ideas to those persons. That is, if they have good ideas that are conductive to good design, then they are one to take a listen to, and especially implement if it's a genuinely good idea that would work as intended. So as you mentioned issues of 4th edition Shadowrun, I liken to agree to those, as very least some of those are problem I can recognize as holding true (one about toys I could simply look up and confirm for self it needed be for example).

Fair enough, I apologize for accusing you of fellatio. Sometimes this place can seem a bit like a cult of personality with certain posters (who shall remain nameless) being kind of worshiped in an echo-chambery/circle jerking, so my hackles were very much raised. And those individuals DO have many good ideas, but many of them can be more than a little abrasive.

Anyway you were right that I ditched the thread for ten days and then came back kind of angry, but you should have seen how angry I was before I gave myself ten days to cool down. : P

You already introduced the Whip as a skill, that's already one more Weapon skill WE DIDN'T NEED.

Ah, my bad: I had honestly forgotten about that.

Anyway, I hear you. Collapse STR + BOD, collapse WIL + CHA, and try and reduce the number of combat skills. I don't think any of these things are overtly bad ideas.

[Leress]

Frank's the one who flew into a retarded trollrage for no good reason. If he had not peppered his posts with nasty vicious insults, I would have received said posts better.

What the fuck is up with people this week and not understanding that they are posting on the goddamn Gaming Den not Happy Bunny Fufu Land Forums?

[deaddmwalking]

When you come to a place asking for help/suggestions/criticisms, the first thing you need to do is take your ego out of it. Obviously this represents a lot of your hard work and you sincerely want to make things better. When someone says 'this doesn't work like you think it does', it's a normal reaction to get defensive.

Whatever you think about Frank Trollman personally, I'm surprised that you've asked him not to participate in your thread. He's the one person that has been providing you honest and comprehensive feedback. Several times you have said something to the equivalent 'good points, but that isn't open for change'. And sure, that's your right if it's your creation, but it doesn't reflect a sincere desire for help/suggestions/criticisms that you've asked for.

As far as my suggestion to you, you shouldn't change which thing you change your game to depending on what looks worse. If you do something better than SR5 but worse than SR4, don't compare it to SR5 as a defense. If your game does something better than SR4 but worse than SR5, don't compare it to SR5 as a defense. Ultimately, you won't end up with a better game than either one - you'll come up with a game that's roughly better and worse than each game in different ways. The only way to avoid that is to have clear design goals and when something is 'worse', it needs to achieve a design goal.

For instance, if you're concerned that direct damage in SR4 is too high and Frank points out that based on the action economy, your new damage is too low that isn't necessarily a problem. If you're trying to make direct damage magic non-viable, mission accomplished! But if SR5 is too low, and while yours is higher it is STILL too low, saying yours is higher than SR5 isn't a defense. It's like saying 'this glass of water has only half as much shit as that one, drink up'. It'd be preferable to be offered a glass with no shit at all.

Ultimately, the changes that you're considering are going to need some mathematical analysis. You've admitted that math analysis is not a strong suit for you. It very clearly is a strength for Frank Trollman.

Rather than trying to create formulas as your first step and hope they work out correctly, you should try to work out your intended results first and then find formulas that fit that result.

For example, in 3.x D&D the decision was made that two naked humans with no modifiers to STR or DEX should have a roughly 50% chance of hitting each other (they decided 10+ so it is actually 55% chance). That decision reflects on the math through the rest of the game. At early levels, it is easy to add really good armor pushing the chance to hit very low; at high levels the attack bonuses progress faster than defense eventually pushing the chance to hit very, very high. Effectively, the chance of hitting doesn't really stay 'steady' - first it is very hard, then it is very easy. They made a formula to address the first case and found the effects didn't work as consistently as they might have hoped. They could have avoided the situation by making the chance to hit much higher (say a 5+) and/or increasing the defense bonus of high level opponents roughly as quickly as they advanced attack bonuses.

TL;DR version:
It's normal that you'd fall in love with your proposals. If you want to improve it, set your ego aside, listen to what people say. You don't have to agree with everything, but don't bother to get defensive. Let them throw out their full suggestions and ask clarifying questions if you think they've missed something. Once you've understood, ask them what suggestions they have to address their perceived issue. Try to evaluate what NEW ISSUES that could create. Compare the relative benefit of the solution to the changes it would require.

[Cyberzombie]

Frank's the one who flew into a retarded trollrage for no good reason. If he had not peppered his posts with nasty vicious insults, I would have received said posts better.

What the fuck is up with people this week and not understanding that they are posting on the goddamn Gaming Den not Happy Bunny Fufu Land Forums?

Insulting the person you're trying to convince is a terrible argument style. It's one thing to call the idea stupid and explain why, but it's quite another to launch personal attacks. Doing the latter almost entirely guarantees that the person will not agree with you and is a terrible method of communication. People have learned to be civil because it's a better way of communicating and you actually have a shot of getting the other guy to see things your way. Just ask yourself how many people have actually been convinced by being insulted.

And the internet tough guy persona is so overdone here. Some grown man trying to pretend he's tough and cool because he can insult someone on the internet... come on. It's just lame. Maybe that shit was cool in the 90s but the charm has worn off.

There's a difference between giving honest criticism and just being an asshole, and I feel a lot of otherwise good discussion topics are ruined by pathetic attempts at playing internet tough guy. Any fool can hurl 4th grade insults, and all it does is make me less inclined to listen to what they've got to say.

[Aryxbez]

and all it does is make me less inclined to listen to what they've got to say.

Which makes it just as dumb, if what evidence given is factual (mathematical, or holds true within rules interaction), the person itself doesn't stop being correct because of your emotional state. All it possibly does is hurt discussion, as now unwilling to hear what they have to say (unless they go all Shadzar/PhoneLobster crazy). If you back to my recent post on here, it shows when things get bad, and it wasn't exactly started by Frank. Regardless though, as I understand, it's not a "personal attack", it's the attack on the mindset in relation to the idea. Taking things personally at the Gaming Den is one of the biggest mistakes you can do, if you want to continue meaningful discussion.

EDIT: Nevermind, I don't want to cause a stir.

[...You Lost Me]

Otherwise, I'd be interested to see these cases where you felt someone was playing "Internet Tough Guy".

Please take it back, cyber will start threadshitting all over again.