Drunken Review: Shadowrun 5

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Ancient History wrote: But everything Frank talks about in designing your own vehicle? That same shit was used in Virtual Realities 2.0 for designing your cyberdeck. SR4 at least got rid of that.
Don't forget the program size table.The old rules were a bit crazy.

The thing was, SR4 was a simplification. Still too complicated and took too many rolls to resolve things, but it was a whole lot of steps in the right direction. They only had five real problems to handle, and while some of them were pretty thorny (Dropout, for instance), some of them were very simple (Agent Smith: just abstract Agents and you're done).

The Matrix should have been fully playable in SR4A. Unfortunately, they had already made bad choices by then.

-Username17
User avatar
silva
Duke
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:11 am

Post by silva »

Cyberzombie wrote:It's amazing that no group of SR developers has ever just tried to make the matrix simple. Have none of them actually seen a hacker/decker in play? Are none of them aware of the "No hackers" rule that pretty much every Shadowrun group has had since 1st edition?

How has the matrix undergone 5 revisions and nobody has even tried simplifying the damn thing?
I not only agree with this reasoning, but extend it to all other aspects of the ruleset: matrix is unnecessarily complex and slow; combat is unnecessarily complex and slow; rigging/driving is unnecessarily complex and slow. Up till second edition its excusable because that was a refinement of the first one. But from third edition forward there is no excuse. Its amazing how they opted to keep everything as complex as always been, instead of simplifying it. Its like they keep the game in the 80s rules-wise purposefully, as a badge of honor or something like that.
Nath
Master
Posts: 262
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:30 pm

Post by Nath »

Emerald wrote:So what would a good 21st-century super-speed mechanic for Shadowrun look like?
One idea I tossed around but never got to field-test was to allow super-speed to "copy-paste" the same action several times: you roll once to shoot at two, three or four targets (or the same one several times), applying the same number of hits for each.

Obvious problem is that it would allow the street samurai to clean up a room before anyone else can react (like they could in 1st and 2nd editions). Also, using Edge on such roll would give a far bigger benefit than it does normally.
TheFlatline
Prince
Posts: 2606
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:43 pm

Post by TheFlatline »

Silent Wayfarer wrote:I wonder if the simplest way to handle that isn't damage scaling. Like say, vehicle damage is basically x10 infantry damage, so if you fired a handgun at a car and did like, 6 health boxes (S wound), it would be about 0.6 of a health box on the vehicle scale (less than an L wound).
This is the Rifts solution. SDC is your normal "hit points", and MDC = 100 SDC. SDC damage is ineffective against MDC level vehicles/people/monsters, because throwing rocks at a tank will never ever do anything.

Rifts subsequently goes batshit crazy though, and the SDC/MDC thing is part of that.

As for equipment limits, I'm... okay with them in a very, very limited concept. Basically, if I was going to use the concept of limits, I'd implement them when you're using the item in a way that is not intended. So a holdout pistol past say 5 meters is really fucking inaccurate, so I'd impose a limit when you use the holdout pistol at long or extreme ranges instead of dice pool penalties. Using a sniper rifle in melee combat would have limits, whereas long and extreme range brackets don't. I'm conceptually okay with this because I've never met someone who could snipe with a saturday night special at someone blocks away. It just doesn't happen reliably due to ballistics.

If, and that's a big if, I extended limits to equipment, I'd only implement limits depending on the situation for the equipment. So for example, an intrusion kit would get you past doors. A standard intrusion kit would get you past one type of door: maglock, combination, electronic passkey, biometrics, etc etc... If you use your kit for doors not intended, you get a success limit. The higher the rating of the kit, the more types of doors you get to open without a limit.

I'd still be wary to extend limits to equipment because fuck that's a lot of work to come up with all that granularity. Even then I'm not sure if dice pool modifiers wouldn't just be a better solution.

Also Frank, I'd be interested how difficult the scaling 1st ed damage system would be to graft into 4th edition. I really loved the LMSD damage codes, and miss the variable soak numbers of 3rd edition (though not the variable target numbers themselves). I liked the idea that some guns hit hard but were easier to soak and others were tough to soak but did little base damage.

I was thinking maybe your damage code, LMSD, and then the number after it is how many successes it takes to stage down the damage on your soak. So a gun that does 3M damage bases medium damage and it takes 3 hits on a soak to stage the damage down (that'd probably be an extreme soak code. Most guns would probably soak based off of 1 or 2). Perhaps the code would also relate to staging damage. So 3M takes 3 net hits to stage to S, 6 to D, and 9 to up the 3 to a 4 on the soak.

But I"m interested in your solution on it Frank. I generally like 4th ed but I really miss the combat damage system from earlier editions.
Last edited by TheFlatline on Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
kzt
Knight-Baron
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 2:59 pm

Post by kzt »

silva wrote:Its like they keep the game in the 80s rules-wise purposefully, as a badge of honor or something like that.
Based on what the writers have said on Dumpshock, that is exactly what they did.
Nath
Master
Posts: 262
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:30 pm

Post by Nath »

TheFlatline wrote:As for equipment limits, I'm... okay with them in a very, very limited concept. Basically, if I was going to use the concept of limits, I'd implement them when you're using the item in a way that is not intended. So a holdout pistol past say 5 meters is really fucking inaccurate, so I'd impose a limit when you use the holdout pistol at long or extreme ranges instead of dice pool penalties. Using a sniper rifle in melee combat would have limits, whereas long and extreme range brackets don't. I'm conceptually okay with this because I've never met someone who could snipe with a saturday night special at someone blocks away. It just doesn't happen reliably due to ballistics.
Except limits don't do that on attack rolls, and they won't as long as the same roll is used to beat range, light, smoke, wind, dodge, cover, and the result is used to determine damage.

Per the rules, even if a gun has an Accuracy of 1, it actually won't affect your chances of hitting a standstill target at any range, under any conditions. Nor does it affect your chance of succeeding at a called shot. It only affects your chances of hitting a target behind a cover or actively dodging, and put a top limit on the amount of damages your projectile can deliver.
Cyberzombie
Knight-Baron
Posts: 742
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 4:12 am

Post by Cyberzombie »

Ancient History wrote: They did. That was SR4. It was a radical simplification of the Matrix in many ways. You went from 4+ Matrix attributes down to 2; you went from 3+ Matrix skills down to 1-2. It was also broken as fuck, as new things are like to be. It needed at least one more generation of smoothing and rethinking and refinement, and it didn't get that. It got a hideously complicated add-on (Unwired) and a band-aid of a rules update in SR4A, and that was it.
In many ways I found SR4 matrix more complex than its predecessors. Because they added the extra complex step of actually finding nodes and matrix perception tests, where in SR 3 and before, you at least kind of knew what every icon was and what nodes you could move to. The 3E matrix was a linear dungeon, but at least the corridors were well known. You beat the IC, entered the node then chose a path. It took a while, sure but at least the steps were pretty well defined. The SR4 matrix was all up in the air, and it took an extended test to even find a node to hack (since the majority of stuff like cameras would be in hidden mode). Then there were IC that are capable of moving outside their nodes, and IC that run multiple programs as opposed to the single use attackers of SR1-3.

And both systems had an ungodly number of rolls required to get shit done. I'm really not sure which had fewer or more because I've never compared them and like most groups mine tried a hacker character for 1-2 sessions then decided to ban them from then on. All I can really say is that both systems had way too many rolls to the point of being unplayable.
User avatar
Ancient History
Serious Badass
Posts: 12708
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:57 pm

Post by Ancient History »

Cyberzombie wrote: In many ways I found SR4 matrix more complex than its predecessors. Because they added the extra complex step of actually finding nodes and matrix perception tests, where in SR 3 and before, you at least kind of knew what every icon was and what nodes you could move to. The 3E matrix was a linear dungeon, but at least the corridors were well known. You beat the IC, entered the node then chose a path. It took a while, sure but at least the steps were pretty well defined.
You're thinking more SR2. In SR3 they moved on to "Trigger Steps" and Events.
The SR4 matrix was all up in the air, and it took an extended test to even find a node to hack (since the majority of stuff like cameras would be in hidden mode). Then there were IC that are capable of moving outside their nodes, and IC that run multiple programs as opposed to the single use attackers of SR1-3.
Yeah, that's all stuff that moves back to SR2 or so. Frames and agents were not new to SR4, you just couldn't run them all because you didn't have enough memory before.
And both systems had an ungodly number of rolls required to get shit done. I'm really not sure which had fewer or more because I've never compared them and like most groups mine tried a hacker character for 1-2 sessions then decided to ban them from then on. All I can really say is that both systems had way too many rolls to the point of being unplayable.
Like I said, SR4 was at least a major revision or two from being playable. The perception roll thing was nuts and useless and nobody ever used it in actual play because you'd reach the heat death of the universe before you finished your cybercombat. But SR4 was a major simplification from SR1-3 in many respects.
User avatar
silva
Duke
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:11 am

Post by silva »

Would it work if the matrix was abstracted to being "function-oriented" ? I mean:

The group must infiltrate a research complex. [decker rolls for accessing the system and faking personal Ids for everybody]. The group uses the Ids to enter the complex and come across an elevator to an off-limits floor. [decker rolls for activating it]. The group comes across a big hallway full of cameras [decker rolls for disabling it]. The group comes across a safe [decker rolls for opening it]. The group gets the package and get out through a side-door [decker rolls for deleting/manipulating sensors registry to the group presence in the building]. End run.

If each of those decker interventions consist of only one quick roll, and any Ice / intrusion countermeasures / security deckers would just be modifiers to that roll, it would make the whole process super-fast and also make it possible for the decker to be off-site (since he would be interacting with the group through normal conversation as if he was present anyway).

Thoughts ? :confused:
TheFlatline
Prince
Posts: 2606
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:43 pm

Post by TheFlatline »

Nath wrote:
TheFlatline wrote:As for equipment limits, I'm... okay with them in a very, very limited concept. Basically, if I was going to use the concept of limits, I'd implement them when you're using the item in a way that is not intended. So a holdout pistol past say 5 meters is really fucking inaccurate, so I'd impose a limit when you use the holdout pistol at long or extreme ranges instead of dice pool penalties. Using a sniper rifle in melee combat would have limits, whereas long and extreme range brackets don't. I'm conceptually okay with this because I've never met someone who could snipe with a saturday night special at someone blocks away. It just doesn't happen reliably due to ballistics.
Except limits don't do that on attack rolls, and they won't as long as the same roll is used to beat range, light, smoke, wind, dodge, cover, and the result is used to determine damage.

Per the rules, even if a gun has an Accuracy of 1, it actually won't affect your chances of hitting a standstill target at any range, under any conditions. Nor does it affect your chance of succeeding at a called shot. It only affects your chances of hitting a target behind a cover or actively dodging, and put a top limit on the amount of damages your projectile can deliver.
Um... I wasn't talking about using SR's limit rules. Just trying to adapt the concept.
User avatar
Longes
Prince
Posts: 2867
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 4:02 pm

Post by Longes »

This review made me realise something: the DnD 3.5/Pathfinder are probably the best written games I've seen. Those are literally the only games I've been able to play by RAW, without house rulling the shit out of the subsystems :|
User avatar
NineInchNall
Duke
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by NineInchNall »

silva wrote:Would it work if the matrix was abstracted to being "function-oriented" ?

...

Thoughts ? :confused:
It wouldn't work, in that grognards would grognard about the lack of granularity. Just think about the shitfits they throw at the idea of having a unified Firearms skill, then think about what kind of tantrum would result from reducing an entire subsystem to such high levels of abstraction.
Current pet peeves:
Misuse of "per se". It means "[in] itself", not "precisely". Learn English.
Malformed singular possessives. It's almost always supposed to be 's.
TheFlatline
Prince
Posts: 2606
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:43 pm

Post by TheFlatline »

I've argued a similar system where you make contested rolls between the sysadmin/hacker or IC/hacker to control the system. Hits represent authority in the system/control of the system. You can spend accumulated hits to do shit. Spend 3 to inflict damage on the IC/Hacker/Sysadmin, spend 2 to open this door, spend lots and lots to root the system and pwn the network.

The system can spend successes to lock doors, activate alarms, attack the hacker, beef up it's own defenses, etc...

So if you only need to peek in and hack a single door, you log in, force yourself into the system, get 2 successes, log back out. If you have a bigger data run, you can either stay logged in or log back in periodically- each time you log in past the first time the system gets a small bonus to it's authority count, otherwise if you're in you're in a knocked down drag out fight.

Outside of hacking systems and simply hacking other people/hackers out in the real world, I'd probably integrate the GOD thing and have the "system" you're hacking be the actual infrastructure of the wifi matrix. The area you're in has a quality rating, and each turn you roll rating number of dice independent of the hackers going at it and you're trying to hit X number of hits. At x number of hits you've fucked with the public matrix enough and caused enough issues that a GOD agent is dispatched who is probably a badass and the fight becomes a 3-way brawl. It's like Lone Star. Get into a gunfight and you'll probably get lone star eventually to show up. Light off some missiles in downtown Seattle and you'll have the big fucking guns showing up.

I'm not sure how I'd address Dropout. I might crib Frank's Ends of the Matrix and enable brain hacking and shit. I'm not playing SR actively so I haven't bothered to think of it much.
Cyberzombie
Knight-Baron
Posts: 742
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 4:12 am

Post by Cyberzombie »

silva wrote:Would it work if the matrix was abstracted to being "function-oriented" ? I mean:

The group must infiltrate a research complex. [decker rolls for accessing the system and faking personal Ids for everybody]. The group uses the Ids to enter the complex and come across an elevator to an off-limits floor. [decker rolls for activating it]. The group comes across a big hallway full of cameras [decker rolls for disabling it]. The group comes across a safe [decker rolls for opening it]. The group gets the package and get out through a side-door [decker rolls for deleting/manipulating sensors registry to the group presence in the building]. End run.
I think that'd be a definite good start. Every action you make in the matrix should be to do something in the physical world. Whether it's to shut off a camera, open a door or disable someone's smart gun. I'd like IC to be something like a triggered trap if you fail. So if you fail to shut down someone's smart gun and it's IC protected, then the IC autozaps you with something and you make a resistance roll. If there's no IC, you simply fail without any consequences. I'd also heavily downplay matrix combat. At most, a matrix combat should be over in 6 dice rolls.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

TheFlatline wrote:I'm not sure how I'd address Dropout.
You pretty much have two choices to address Dropout with the rest of the design assumptions of Shadowrun. You can either:

A.) Make it impossible to shield yourself from hacker attacks other than having a specific defense. So no turning off the device or wrapping your shit in Faraday cages or just hotswapping gear and throwing the old junk away.

B.) Or make it so that people are extremely dependent on bonuses and make it hard to turn on or off. So while having your cybereyes and drone and braindeck and whatever up all of the time leaves you vulnerable to hacker attacks, it actually hurts you more to go full-Luddite even against enemies that are specifically targeting your shit. Imagine if it took months of convalescence for your body to adjust to your wired reflexes or your mentally-activated gun. Or if machines couldn't operate their quantum nanocomputers or some shit at full capacity without a few days of continuous uptime.
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Tue Mar 18, 2014 2:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
TheFlatline
Prince
Posts: 2606
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:43 pm

Post by TheFlatline »

That's the two basic stick options. And either might work.

It's got other issues too unless you get heavy handed. Hack-a-stack is an issue unless you just flat out say "because *technobabble* this is irrelevant" or "you're already doing this, that's why you're able to do what you do".

Agent Smith is doable by toning down the capabilities and inter-cooperating of agents. Also by ditching the idea that a Teddy Rockspin "drone" can host an agent.

Hall of Mirrors just flat out does't exist in that kind of abstraction. And technically you can wave hack-a-stack and Agent Smith out as well by requiring a neural interface or something stupid like that.

Dropout is the major problem though. It will *always* be a problem.

I could see in another setting going full on Tesla and saying the only way you can power something like cyberware is to be hooked up to the power grid at large, which opens you to hacking.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

TheFlatline wrote:I could see in another setting going full on Tesla and saying the only way you can power something like cyberware is to be hooked up to the power grid at large, which opens you to hacking.
Frankly, I think that hacking in Shadowrun should just flat-out stop being a VAH thing. Any serious hacking is done by Technomancers from now on. Technomancers can be a product of explicit magic or magic-powered pseudoscience. That way people permanently shut the fuck up about brain lasers, ripping the atomic battery out of their AR rifle, or wrapping their heads in Faraday cages.

It's kind of bogus and sad that this shits on the hacker archetype by announcing that they're all some form of magic and/or Treknobabble from now on, but it sure as hell beats the alternative of players and GMs introducing game-stopping filibustering with their 'clever' ways of cutting the knot/declaring that +30 to Hide won't let you sneak past a guard in a featureless, well-lit hallway.
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
DSMatticus
King
Posts: 5271
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am

Post by DSMatticus »

Flatline wrote:Dropout is the major problem though. It will *always* be a problem.
? I think you missed something here. Frank's proposed solution is that you can't drop out and characters are always valid targets for hackers, presumably all the way down to brainhacking naked mundies. That completely axes combat dropout, and is totally in-genre.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

Not that I have anything against brainhacking mundies, but is it really a problem if some moron decides that their best defense against non-magical hacking is to go full Luddite with a flak jacket and holdout pistol? It's sort of like a monk deciding that their secret weapon against the wizard is going to be their Ring of Antimagic field. This kind of dubious defense will only end in tears, especially if the wizard has other friends around.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
User avatar
Lokathor
Duke
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:10 am
Location: ID
Contact:

Post by Lokathor »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Not that I have anything against brainhacking mundies, but is it really a problem if some moron decides that their best defense against non-magical hacking is to go full Luddite with a flak jacket and holdout pistol? It's sort of like a monk deciding that their secret weapon against the wizard is going to be their Ring of Antimagic field. This kind of dubious defense will only end in tears, especially if the wizard has other friends around.
It's more like a raging grapple barbarian with a ring of AMF. You still get full access to armor (armor isn't computerized anyway), full access to guns (just without smartlink), and full access to bioware.
Last edited by Lokathor on Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
[*]The Ends Of The Matrix: Github and Rendered
[*]After Sundown: Github and Rendered
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

Maybe it'd be a possibility if Shadowrun's non-computer technology wasn't stuck in 80s futurism thinking. Is that just because of the retro 'charm' or is it a failure of imagination on the writers' parts?
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
User avatar
RadiantPhoenix
Prince
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Trudging up the Hill

Post by RadiantPhoenix »

How about if the default assumption is that the goal of the hacker is to reduce the opponent to being a Luddite? (i.e., hacking a runner-grade networked device only brings it down to the level of a luddite device)

If you don't have a smartgun, people with cyber-reflexes will dodge you like they're in The Matrix, or block like they're Jedi in Star Wars, and if you don't have cyber-reflexes, smartguns will slaughter you like you're an infantryman in World War I.

Oh, and hackers (and maybe even mages, if game balance works better that way than with Haste spells) can easily take low-level smartguns and cyber-reflexes that will let them slaughter Luddites almost as well even though they're quite a bit worse at that than a Sam.

Then, as soon as someone is no longer networked, they just die if anyone who's networked wants that, because it isn't even an action to put a bullet through your spine, and maybe they can't even act because stuff's just happening so fucking fast.
Koumei
Serious Badass
Posts: 13877
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: South Ausfailia

Post by Koumei »

NineInchNall wrote:
silva wrote:Would it work if the matrix was abstracted to being "function-oriented" ?

...

Thoughts ? :confused:
It wouldn't work, in that grognards would grognard about the lack of granularity. Just think about the shitfits they throw at the idea of having a unified Firearms skill, then think about what kind of tantrum would result from reducing an entire subsystem to such high levels of abstraction.
There's actually a way around that: you straight-up say "we are doing this for ease of play and an enjoyable game, and there's no way we can have a fucking clue how hacking is going to work in the future. If you want increased complexity and granularity in line with older editions, turn to page XX".

Then on page XX, show a picture of your nuts. Possibly with this is scratch-and-sniff paper written underneath.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

TheFlatline wrote:
Silent Wayfarer wrote:I wonder if the simplest way to handle that isn't damage scaling. Like say, vehicle damage is basically x10 infantry damage, so if you fired a handgun at a car and did like, 6 health boxes (S wound), it would be about 0.6 of a health box on the vehicle scale (less than an L wound).
This is the Rifts solution. SDC is your normal "hit points", and MDC = 100 SDC. SDC damage is ineffective against MDC level vehicles/people/monsters, because throwing rocks at a tank will never ever do anything.

Rifts subsequently goes batshit crazy though, and the SDC/MDC thing is part of that.
It worked for their Macross rules. Megadamage was for your giant mecha with giant mecha weapons. RIFTS tilted it towards crazy when pistols did megadamage and body armor was megadamage.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

RadiantPhoenix wrote:How about if the default assumption is that the goal of the hacker is to reduce the opponent to being a Luddite? (i.e., hacking a runner-grade networked device only brings it down to the level of a luddite device)
Unfortunately, the technology of Shadowrun just isn't really there yet. While the high-end of shadowrunner competence can and should look like a scene from The Matrix, at the low end the game posits that a street gang of 10-12 with zip guns and knives can pose a serious threat to your 2-4 Special Forces veterans armed with mediocre chop-shop cyberware.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Post Reply