So what the shit is so bad about Shadowrun?

[virgil]

To be fair, unless your players are also natives, having a lot of native characters would probably be problematic.

Not really. Having a native player, for me, actually made the prospect of introducing native NPCs harder - and it should be. Ultimately, I just treated native NPCs as any other, but their background file had a NAN for place of origin; though I think the player had enough prejudice toward the plains tribes (she's described them as 'extra') that she would've felt it appropriate if one of them acted/dressed stereotypical.

[Whipstitch]

To be fair, unless your players are also natives, having a lot of native characters would probably be problematic.

Agreed, but that's sorta the problem. I live in Minnesota, so pretty much all I know about Native Americans is filtered through a weird melange of people resenting the fuck out of casinos and white guilt over Dakota War monuments that were quietly removed during the '60s and '70s.

[Ignimortis]

My DM is intent on starting a Shadowrun campaign, but since 5e is the latest edition, he naturally gravitates towards that. Could someone give me a nice good comparison of 4e and 5e, as I've heard that 4e is better so many times on these boards but didn't bother to collect the arguments in a separate document?

[Stahlseele]

No wireless bonus bullshit in SR4.
No hackers being shoehorned into combat trying to brick enemy cyberware.
The monetary values for buying stuff and getting paid are more reasonable.

[Iduno]

5e's design as it was explained to the community looked something like:

Mages are too powerful, TMs are too good at one thing and too bad at the rest, equipment (goggles/contacts) shouldn't be better and cheaper than cyberware that does the exact same thing, and adept powers cost too much.

The way they solved it was by raising the cost of everything, nerfing everything except spirits, and nerfing anything that wasn't magic a second time. They did throw decker/hackers a bone by making everything destroyable (half of your character generation resources on non-magic upgrades? Gone, sucker.), so if they are used the way the rules state, most players will be unhappy.

They knew what they needed to fix, then didn't because the head idiot likes mages and wanted them to be over more powerful. Everything else (even underpowered stuff) was too powerful already. Refusing to fix what they knew were problems is the part that really upset most players. D&D refuses to even acknowledge what the problems are and just changes everything randomly, so you know the next edition will be half-assed. Not this bait and switch bullshit.

[Stahlseele]

"Everyhing has its price!*"


*everything we like is so expensive you won't want to use it and everything we like it so cheap you'd be stupid not to use it. What do you mean, 100% magic user groups are bullshit? YOU are bullshit!

[Trill]

Official Tagline for 5th Edition:
Everything has its price

Actual Tagline for 5th Edition:
It seems like they've mined [Decent ideas for Shadowrun books] but made it shittier and overly complex.

[Stahlseele]

Also, in part, SR5 is grognard appeasement . .
But they did not dare to go any further, because people could just go back to SR3 then . .

[Username17]

My DM is intent on starting a Shadowrun campaign, but since 5e is the latest edition, he naturally gravitates towards that. Could someone give me a nice good comparison of 4e and 5e, as I've heard that 4e is better so many times on these boards but didn't bother to collect the arguments in a separate document?

Short version:

All editions of SR have problems. None of the editions of SR have a Matrix subsystem that is playable as is. Each edition has things to recommend it and unique things it fucks up. Within that context SR5 is the most obviously bad edition because it's almost exactly the SR4 system with a series of changes that are almost all bad. As such it has almost nothing to say in its favor.

So SR5 is the same as SR4 in pretty every way that you'd even consider choosing SR1, SR2, or SR3 over SR4. But SR5 is also straight worse than SR4 in a bunch of other ways, and better in so few ways that it's not much of an argument.

• SR5 has much clunkier character generation. This is an achievement because SR4's character generation system involved spending 400 points, with some of them being converted into thousands of ¥, and then buying equipment down to individual bullets. SR5 still has you buying things that cost 1¥ out of a pool of 20,000¥, but it adds the extra layer of asking that if you want to swap some stat points for some skill points that you do so in awkward lumps at an uneven exchange rate. Which would be something if there was some sort of balance objective being fulfilled, but the reality is that people come out of chargen in SR5 with larger differences in total karma costs than SR4. The extra layers of accounting and nonstandard exchange rates serve to make things less balanced rather than more.
• SR5's core action resolution is the same, save for some flabby dicepool and difficulty inflation and the addition of Limits. Limits are 100% bad and do literally nothing they are supposed to do. Limits make big people better at stealth than small people. Limits make pistols much worse in close combat than sniper rifles but no worse at sniping people. Limits make characters better at picking locks bare handed than with simple tools.
• SR5's Dicepool inflation is bad. The dicepools and the number of hits you're looking for are increased, but not in a uniform or mathematically sound fashion. The math behind the numbers on your character sheet is just worse overall.
• Combat in SR5 is built on the same chassis save that they've instituted a hamhanded "one attack limit" per initiative pass and raised the armor and damage levels on all basic equipment. There's no justification for the one attack limit in-world, and there's no coherent definition of what constitutes "an attack" in-game. The SR5 attack and action paradigm is retarded, but it also doesn't solve any problems.
• SR4's biggest flaw in its combat system is the "two shot problem". That is to say that because damage is non-proportional and the number of wound boxes that are being filled in from an attack is very large compared to the variance on the dice. SR5 responds by making the damage values even larger and the variance on the dice even less meaningful, making the number of hits you can take even more deterministic.
• There are lots of changes to the magic system. Some things are nerfed into oblivion (Stun Bolt went from "a reasonable way to drop a dude" to "completely useless"), some new broken shit is added (Alchemical contingent spells let you save up five spells and cast them in one turn as a free action), and the overall effect is that Mages are even more better than you than before.
• I should say that there are two positive changes: Adepts aren't being charged extra for kung fu powers (but kung fu adepts still aren't very good, so it's a move in the right direction that is not far enough), and Summoned Spirits don't get a fuckoff huge pile of Edge (but they are still way better than you, so again it's a move in the right direction that is not far enough). But neither of these things actually solve the underlying issue of mages being way way better than you.
• SR5 attempts to solve one of the fundamental problems of the SR4 Matrix ("Dropout") by giving weird bonuses for all kinds of devices to be logged into the intertubes. This completely fails at solving that particular issue of the Matrix, and the SR5 Matrix is still totally unplayable. But in SR5 there are fiddly and nonsensical bonuses on all sorts of things everywhere and the failtastic Matrix system gets its cooties on everything from trench coats to night vision goggles.

Shorter version: SR5 addresses, but does not solve, a few of SR4's known issues. SR5 also creates a bunch of problems, mostly having to do with making an already bloated and fiddly system more bloated and more fiddly and having much worse underlying math that accomplishes the opposite of stated objectives a shockingly large amount of the time.

Also the writing quality of SR5 is very poor compared to any previous edition. Leaving aside questions of dicepools and resource management, the prose in SR5 is very poor. It reads like a poorly cobbled together series of blog posts more than it does like a book.

-Username17

[Stahlseele]

As much as it pains me to write this (because i still love SR3, despite and maybe because of its flaws):
Strictly from a technical level, $R4.5A is the best Version you can play.
We'll see how bad SR6 is in a year or two i guess . . .

[Trill]

Strictly from a technical level, $R4.5A is the best Version you can play.

Eh, I'm not so sure.
SR 4.5? maybe
SR 4.5A? not really
unless you think that such things as making you take drain for net hits is good design

[Stahlseele]

I hate mages, so yes, i do think that is a good thing.

[Whipstitch]

That's still a fucking stupid thing to endorse, Stahl. Basically, you're saying "Good on them!" because they failed to address the real problems and they did so in a way that didn't make any sense whatsoever given their stated rationale.

[Ignimortis]

Thanks to everyone for responses, much appreciated. I've forwarded all of that to my GM, we'll see if he considers those reasons enough to go with an earlier edition (I guess 4.5e would be nice).

[Stahlseele]

@Whipstitch
Mayhaps make it so that only combat spells do it, for some niche-protection for mundane fighting. Because if you want magic to hurt it is going to hurt or some such drivel as the fluff explanation. But otherwise it was the first attempt to finally try and reign in the magic run problem.

[Trill]

Stahlseele, this was already discussed in the 4e newbie thread. SR4A made the change that every net hit on combat spells used to do more damage raised the Drain by one. This was intended to curb the use of Combat spells like Stunbolt.
Problem is:
A) this didn't fix shit. Instead of making people take Indirect spells it just made everyone Overcast (why pay one more drain for one more DV if you can just make the Force two higher, have two more damage and only one more drain?)
B) This had dumb effects with Area spells. Say you cast Stunball and hit enemies A and B. You rolled 4 hits, A rolled one hit, B rolled 3 hits. What's your drain? With A you have 3 net hits, with B just one. Is the Drain

• normal Drain
• (Drain as normal)+3 because of A
• (Drain as normal)+1 because of B
• something else

?

[phlapjackage]

Shorter version: SR5 addresses, but does not solve, a few of SR4's known issues. SR5 also creates a bunch of problems, mostly having to do with making an already bloated and fiddly system more bloated and more fiddly and having much worse underlying math that accomplishes the opposite of stated objectives a shockingly large amount of the time.

New tagline for SR5: We're the Pathfinder of the cyberpunk genre

Also the writing quality of SR5 is very poor compared to any previous edition. Leaving aside questions of dicepools and resource management, the prose in SR5 is very poor. It reads like a poorly cobbled together series of blog posts more than it does like a book.

Trying to read JH's fiction in the main book...it's bad man, really bad.

[Stahlseele]

@Trill
a.) True, i keep forgetting that Overcasting is its own problem that exists.

b.) I'd say normal drain, as the drain comes from your casting the spell and net hits on the spell. The hits on the target location for balls only say how much damage they can resist, as far as i rememberry.

[phlapjackage]

Problem is:
A) this didn't fix shit. Instead of making people take Indirect spells it just made everyone Overcast (why pay one more drain for one more DV if you can just make the Force two higher, have two more damage and only one more drain?)
B) This had dumb effects with Area spells. Say you cast Stunball and hit enemies A and B. You rolled 4 hits, A rolled one hit, B rolled 3 hits. What's your drain? With A you have 3 net hits, with B just one. Is the Drain

• normal Drain
• (Drain as normal)+3 because of A
• (Drain as normal)+1 because of B
• something else

?

iirc, there was also another problem ?
C) instead of worrying about net hits or physical drain from overcasting, people would multi-cast 2 stunbolts. Base damage was lower, but ended up being *2 and no real drain to worry about

[Trill]

b.) I'd say normal drain, as the drain comes from your casting the spell and net hits on the spell. The hits on the target location for balls only say how much damage they can resist, as far as i rememberry.

That's the thing: Net hits in this situation are not clearly defined

Let's make an example:
Stunball has Drain Code F/2 +1
Let's say we cast it at F4, so our drain is 4/2 +1=3
We attack the two people and get 4 hits, they get 3 and 1 hit.
When we consider Person A we have hit them, and every net hit we let through increases the drain by one, so in our case the drain would now be 4
When we however consider Person B we have hit them with 3 net hits, so our drain should be 6

Which is it?

[Stahlseele]

No no no, the targets do not matter.
You decide on your roll which net hits you get to keep.
Not when they resist.
Your net hits are what you have above what you need to cast the spell correct?
And if you cast it at force 4 and just say the base cast is enough for 3 drain, then you have cast a force 4 stunball.
One of them gets hit with 3 stun because of his one hit on resist and
one of them gets hit with 1 stun because of his 3 hits on resist.
If you had taken any more net hits on your casting roll it would have increased your drain and lessened their chance on a complete resit.
Like this, the one guy would have needed only one more hit to not get any stun damage at all.
If you had taken 2 more net hits on your cast roll for 2 more drain, then even with 4 hits he would not have completely resisted the damage, because you still had net hits left.
Or am i getting this mixed up with SR2 or 3 resolution again? <.<

[Trill]

Stahlseele, I have no fucking clue what you're talking about

No no no, the targets do not matter.
You decide on your roll which net hits you get to keep.
Not when they resist.
Your net hits are what you have above what you need to cast the spell correct?

What you describe has nothing to do with SR4 or 5
In SR4 casting goes as follows

1. Select a Spell
2. Select the Force you want to cast it at
3. Roll your Spellcasting pool (MAG+Spellcasting+-Modifiers)
4. Count your hits (all dice which show 5 or 6)
5. Try to get over a set Threshold or above the hits on an opposed test
6. Resolve Effects
7. Resist drain

In case of a Stunbolt (with SR4A rules)

1. Select Stunbolt
2. We cast it at Force 4
3. We roll the pool
4. We get 4 hits (4 or more dice that show 5 or 6)
5. Enemy rolls his WIL getting 2 hits. This means we have two net hits
6. The enemy takes damage equal to F+(net hits used for damage), which is equal to 6S
7. We resist drain equal to (F/2)-1+(net hits used for damage), in this case(4/2)-1+2=3S damage

We could have reduced our hits to reduce the net hits to 0. In that case we would only hit for 4S, but only worry about 1S drain

Now let's see what happens with a Stunball

1. We select Stunball
2. We cast it at Force 4
3. We roll our Spellcasting pool
4. We get 4 or more hits
5. The two enemies roll WIL(+Counterspelling) getting respectively 3 and 1 hits. We have 1 net hit with A (our 4 hits-his 3 hits) and 3 net hits with B (our 4 hits - his 1 hit)
6. Resolve Effects. Whoops.
7. Resist drain. Whoops

To reduce the net hits with B to 0 would mean not hitting A. Reducing the net hits with A to 0 would still mean 2 net hits against B.
How many net hits do we use to boost the damage? And following that: How much drain do we take?

[Username17]

It's been a while, but I wasn't real impressed by Shadowrun 4A when it came out It wasn't the trainwreck that 5th edition was, but it suffered from having been written after things had started to fall apart at the top. The changes fro straight SR4 are mostly bad (if incredibly minor in most cases). The net hits to drain thing is particularly egregious because none of the authors ever admitted to being the person who wrote it and no one ever even said what the justification was supposed to be. It was obviously a shit rule, and as noted it even causes a divide by zero error with Stunball, which isn't even an obscure spell. But that rule wasn't even in drafts of the book quite late in the process. It was a nonsensical and mathematically indefensible nerf that represents a major change to how drain was to be handled that someone slipped into the book at the last minute with no oversight and no discussion and once the book came out no one could offer an affirmative defense of the idea and it just got errataed back out. What the actual fuck?

The thing is though that while there's really obvious fuckups like that in Shadowrun 4A, I can't actually think of much that is actually good. The limit on how many things you can cram into a set of contact lenses is probably a positive, but every other change I can think of is either irrelevant or bad. It's almost literally the D&D 3.5 situation - all the changes were asspulls that were never playtested, debated, or justified. And while the book is larger and glossier, making an affirmative case for the rules changes is actually quite difficult and it's hard to not conclude that it was overall a negative edition shift.

-Username17

[Nath]

The question that decide which of 4th, 20th Anniversary (and, if you're really open-minded, 5th) is the best or least worst edition is which one requires the lowest amount of houseruling.

20th Anniversary had direct combat spell drain increased by net hits, which was promptly turned into an optional rule. It also increased range modifiers for ranged weapons, raised the nuyen cost for Active and Knowledge Skillsofts, lowered cost for the Adept's Improved Physical Attribute and Improved Reflexes powers, restriction on the use of spirit's Movement power (practically preventing its use on vehicles).

But the most significant change between 4th and 20th Anniversary editions was - by far - the increased cost to raise attribute, from rating x 3 to rating x 5 karma. Few took notice because almost everyone have agree to apply that change way before the 20th Anniversary edition was released. In that regards, there are actually very few people that play "true" 4th edition. The fact that this was a widespread houserule doesn't change the fact it was a major one: introducing it with characters that were created or improved with the old cost created a significant gap between characters depending on players' previous choices.

[Whipstitch]

Few took notice because almost everyone have agree to apply that change way before the 20th Anniversary edition was released.

I'm super duper skeptical that people didn't notice only because they had already adopted some houserule I have never used or even really heard about. In fact, I'd argue that the change doesn't actually do all that much, relatively speaking, because it's a global nerf that doesn't particularly impact any one archetype so much more than others and because it doesn't even really affect starting characters. After all, SR4 uses separate currency for character creation and character advancement for some stupid ass reason that's never been satisfactorily explained, so the way to "win" at SR character creation and advancement is to play stupid arbitrage games where you soft-cap everything you care about and put off minor horizontal advancement until you can pay for that piddly shit with karma instead of precious BP. Unilaterally changing just attribute karma costs doesn't really do anything to change that and frankly I don't think it goes far enough to suddenly skills look more attractive by comparison, either, especially Awakened characters can just plow things into Initiation anyway.