Howdy folks. I realize this is generally off topic, but given that the brain trust in residence here is both responsive and insightful, I'd figure I'd see what you knew.

First, a quick rundown of the SR Rules that I'm puzzling over:

Here's what I'm grappling with. You could, in theory, easily have a character fire 4 shots on their turn. For each shot, they would roll a handful of dice. However, the target number for firing 4 shots goes up by +1 for the first 2 round burst of a semi-automatic weapon, and up an additional +1 for the second 2 round burst of a semi-automatic weapon. If you change targets, that adds more to the target number, so let's assume you only target one character. If you realy like rolling dice, you can even shoot a gun in each hand, which I believe adds a +2 to the target number and would allow you to fire 8 shots on a single turn.

The root of my question is this: which is better a lower target number or rolling lots and lots of dice. Maybe it's my lack of math proficiency, but when I see the above, I think to myself that the best strategy would be to fire as many shots as humanly possible. It seems like if you have a firearms skill of 4, and you make 8 attacks, you will succeed on quite a few of those attacks even on high target numbers because rolling 32 dice is bound to get you at least a few 6's (or higher on the rerolls).

Even if 8 attacks makes the target number too high, you can still just fire with a single gun, make 4 attacks, and roll 16d6. Again, your chances of succeeding with one of those attacks seems very high, even if the target number is above 6.

I realize that the number of successes you score on the attack is important because it increases the damage of the weapon. But, I'm not just concerned about the power of the tactic, I'm also concerned with how many dice are rolled - any time a character does hit, the target will be rolling a handful of dice to resist the damage, which feeds into my ultimate issue.

How many actions in a single turn is too many? And, I don't just mean this from a balance point of view, I mean it from the point of view of "how long can one person's turn take when they are rolling 32d6 and provoking a handful of d6's in response, and how boring is that for everyone else at the table." The problem is obviously going to be worse if the incentive is to fire multiple shots per turn, which, I suspect there is.

So, is the incentive in Shadowrun to fire multiple shots on each turn and use a weapon in each hand? Do such tactics slow combat to a crawl, as I would suspect?

I've played a lot of Shadowrun 3E, but I don't have my books handy. From my experience there are a few things to consider. If the target has decent armor, you're probably better off getting in one good shot that gives you a lot of successes or else you end up with a bunch of hits that end up doing no damage. Shooting off a lot of rounds can be plenty effective, but you do have to track your ammo. If you only have a couple of clips handy and there's a lot of opposition, you're going to want to make your shots count. Winning initiative is however extremely important. Most fights don't go too long, and if you can get the first few shots off and make them count, you've got a huge advantage. Fighting with two guns also makes it harder to reload. I haven't seen too many instances of two gun fighters in my games.

Just keep an eye out for those high altitude drones with miniguns, snipers and all the other nasty s$@@ that can really f&!@ you up.

With the proper gear and the right skills and cyberware you don't need to choose between rolling a lot of dice and having a lower TN. :)

Thanks. So does that mean the game already is balanced for this, and the key is to make sure the bad guys have sufficient armor to reduce the effectiveness of firing millions of shots?

Thanks. So does that mean the game already is balanced for this, and the key is to make sure the bad guys have sufficient armor to reduce the effectiveness of firing millions of shots?

Between all the shots, modifiers for different events, and the armor of your foes, it's relatively alright. It can get a little wonky, but then the GM just has to throw in a spirit and it balances out again.

I won't speak of statistics, but in my experience a lower target number is much better. If you have to roll 10+ on a D6 (and you can with the "exploding" mechanic) you need lots and lots of dice to have a chance.
If you need to roll a 2, you can do that with two dice pretty easy.

Lower TN is better than lots of dice. Of course, if you can get both...

Like most games, speed of combat is directly related to proficiency of players. Well trained players can run their actions in 30 seconds or less. New players, longer. And that usually takes into account the "response" dice you mentioned.

And frankly, there are two areas of Shadowrun that will make you cry if you are worried about combat boring your players when it isn't their turn. (Avoid astral projection and decking at all costs.)

Howdy folks. I realize this is generally off topic, but given that the brain trust in residence here is both responsive and insightful, I'd figure I'd see what you knew.

First, a quick rundown of the SR Rules that I'm puzzling over:

** spoiler omitted **...

One aspect of combat that you are missing there is that in addition to rolling dice to reduce damage from a hit is that you can roll dice to dodge the attack entirely. For the complete dodge, you have to counter the attacker;s total number of successes. so if a shot hit with only 1 success, its easier to dodge then a shot that was more accurate and had 3, for example.

In practice, i have played shadowrun 1E and 2E (and own/read/played 3rd)for many years and i have seen characters built with both styles (high accuracy/huge dice rolled) and also middle grounds. Each one has been useful or shined at different points. Huge Dice builds are great when dealing with 'mook' squads and the High Accuracy tend to do best against the Higher Powered boss type folks.

Type of weapons and ammo are also a factor,as well as the Bioware, Cyberware, and Magic to boost things.

Overall, for a general feel good as a player, the Huge Dice build can be very fun from the simple fact of the handfuls of dice to throw.

And frankly, there are two areas of Shadowrun that will make you cry if you are worried about combat boring your players when it isn't their turn. (Avoid astral projection and decking at all costs.)

What are the issues with astral projection and decking? I've always avoided those areas as a player because there were so many additional rules to deal with - is that the core issue? Or is it that those activities inherently split the party?

I've been considering a few house rules, and wondered what everyone thought of them:

1. Initiative. I'd like to equalize initiative a little bit, by adopting two changes. First, the highest level of initiative boosting gear will not be available (so, no wired reflexes 3). Second, I want to expand the rounds from 3 seconds to 6 seconds and have everyone roll 3d6+Rctn as their base initiative roll. This should give everyone at least 2 actions in a round, and reduce the number of extra actions the highly cybered/magic guys get. I'm also considering letting characters spend skill points or attribute points to increase their initiative - basically, I want to make a non-cybered/non-magic character work a little better than it currently does. The biggest disadvantage I see with this rule is that it will make combat pools too small because they won't be refreshing as often. Which, brings me to house rule number 2.

2. Karma Pool. I love the idea from Alpha Omega of having a dice pool that upgrades. I've only skimmed the karma pool rules, but it seems like the pool is mostly like action points. I am thinking of having the karma pool be an additional pool of dice that can be added to any skill. The karma pool starts out as d6's, but the dice can be upgraded to d8's, d10's, etc. by spending karma or other points at character creation.

3. Firing a Gun. If I change firing a gun into a complex action (thus limiting the number of shots per round) would that dramatically alter game balance, or would it just help to decrease the incentive to build dice pool monsters? I'm hoping it is the later.

Any other thoughts on house rules?

Disenchanter wrote:

And frankly, there are two areas of Shadowrun that will make you cry if you are worried about combat boring your players when it isn't their turn. (Avoid astral projection and decking at all costs.)

What are the issues with astral projection and decking? I've always avoided those areas as a player because there were so many additional rules to deal with - is that the core issue? Or is it that those activities inherently split the party?

There are two prime issues with projection and decking. First, the non-projecting/decking characters have nothing to do. Literally. You can't even, reasonably, "split the action up" by going back and forth between the players because projecting and decking occur in game seconds. It takes some major GM coordination to make all the players feel involved and useful, while keeping some level of appropriate time line.

And second, since these are "second class" areas of the game, many people don't grasp the rules very well. So it takes (usually) a LOT longer to adjudicate.

I've been considering a few house rules, and wondered what everyone thought of them:

1. Initiative. I'd like to equalize initiative a little bit, by adopting two changes. First, the highest level of initiative boosting gear will not be available (so, no wired reflexes 3). Second, I want to expand the rounds from 3 seconds to 6 seconds and have everyone roll 3d6+Rctn as their base initiative roll. This should give everyone at least 2 actions in a round, and reduce the number of extra actions the highly cybered/magic guys get. I'm also considering letting characters spend skill points or attribute points to increase their initiative - basically, I want to make a non-cybered/non-magic character work a little better than it currently does. The biggest disadvantage I see with this rule is that it will make combat pools too small because they won't be refreshing as often. Which, brings me to house rule number 2.

That would go against the setting. Un-augmented people are supposed to be that pathetic. If that is what you want for the game, then I have nothing to stop you. It does go against my vision of the game/setting so I have difficulty looking at it objectively. But it looks like it would be balanced, if you held the standard for everyone.

I do wonder if the price for the cyber augmentation would still be "balanced" in your version... But that is strictly "gut reaction."

2. Karma Pool. I love the idea from Alpha Omega of having a dice pool that upgrades. I've only skimmed the karma pool rules, but it seems like the pool is mostly like action points. I am thinking of having the karma pool be an additional pool of dice that can be added to any skill. The karma pool starts out as d6's, but the dice can be upgraded to d8's, d10's, etc. by spending karma or other points at character creation.

That would reduce the weight of other die pools, and increase the likelihood of dice pool monsters. Unless you are looking to remove the other pools completely... Which sounds horrendous to me. But without more detail, I couldn't judge that kind of modification.

3. Firing a Gun. If I change firing a gun into a complex action (thus limiting the number of shots per round) would that dramatically alter game balance, or would it just help to decrease the incentive to build dice pool monsters? I'm hoping it is the later.

Wait... Are you saying you would change all gun firing modes below Full Auto up to a complex action? Then what would be the balance against Full Auto fire?

And my "senses" are starting to tingle. Are you talking about 4th Edition Shadowrun? Because I haven't even read those rules, and all of my input so far should be ignored.

That would go against the setting. Un-augmented people are supposed to be that pathetic. If that is what you want for the game, then I have nothing to stop you. It does go against my vision of the game/setting so I have difficulty looking at it objectively. But it looks like it would be balanced, if you held the standard for everyone.

I do wonder if the price for the cyber augmentation would still be "balanced" in your version... But that is strictly "gut reaction."

I'm not too concerned with changing the setting; I want a gritty game. I find that a lot of cyberware, like a lot of magic items in D&D, tends to disrupt my sense of grittiness, so I want to make cyberware less effective to a certain extent. I have a hard time with a guy sporting a million nuyen in gear running the shadows for 10k a pop.

Would the price for cyber augmentation be too high or too low? The other idea I'm tossing around is reducing the essence loss. That would hopefully enable characters to take a bunch of smaller, cheaper cyberware that has neat effects but is normally avoided due to the essence costs of things like wired reflexes.

That would reduce the weight of other die pools, and increase the likelihood of dice pool monsters. Unless you are looking to remove the other pools completely... Which sounds horrendous to me. But without more detail, I couldn't judge that kind of modification.

Interesting. I was thinking of limiting the karma pool dice to a relatively small number (say, 3, maybe 4 for humans). Part of my logic here is that the other pools will refresh less often if I increase the initiative for all characters, and having the karma pool dice available would help bouy those pools.

Wait... Are you saying you would change all gun firing modes below Full Auto up to a complex action? Then what would be the balance against Full Auto fire?

And my "senses" are starting to tingle. Are you talking about 4th Edition Shadowrun? Because I haven't even read those rules, and all of my input so far should be ignored.

Ack. I didn't think about full-auto fire and the fact that the multiple shots is balanced against those weapons. Thanks. Maybe I will have to keep the rules as written and just ban having a gun in each hand.

I'm theoretically using 3e rules, and just trying to make sure they will map on to the style of play I want. I want a street level cyberpunk game, and super-cybered PCs with two guns blazing doesn't fit with that idea.

Now, for the villians, that's another story...

I'm theoretically using 3e rules, and just trying to make sure they will map on to the style of play I want. I want a street level cyberpunk game, and super-cybered PCs with two guns blazing doesn't fit with that idea.

If that is your primary goal, then limit the amount of resources characters can take at creation.

K.I.S.S.

Why rework all the rules, when what you are looking for can be easily changed in one location?

I forget the chart, and don't have my books handy, but limiting resources to C or B should do it. Although, the lower you limit it, the more likely you will hedge out certain archetypes. Riggers and Deckers in particular need lots of nuyen to fill their roll well, especially if they will double as something else too.
This may be fine for you, but it is something to be considered.

If that is your primary goal, then limit the amount of resources characters can take at creation.

K.I.S.S.

Why rework all the rules, when what you are looking for can be easily changed in one location?

I forget the chart, and don't have my books handy, but limiting resources to C or B should do it. Although, the lower you limit it, the more likely you will hedge out certain archetypes. Riggers and Deckers in particular need lots of nuyen to fill their roll well, especially if they will double as something else too.
This may be fine for you, but it is something to be considered.

I'll mirror this sentiment. If we're running a "ganger" campaign rather than tweaking existing rules we simply limit the builds. If you have the companion (rather than the main book), you can do this very easily by limiting the amount one can spend during point-buy on resources (to say 90k which is MORE than sufficient for a grittier world).

Back to the original question. One thing to remember about the TN vs. lots of dice debate is that one success may hit, but really how awesome is the 9M damage with one success? Most "average" people wearing armor are going to shrug that off to a light wound (one box) pretty easily). Taking four successes turns that into a deadly wound which means likely that same person suddenly has six boxes of damage instead of one for three extra successes. I'd hit for a happy medium, throw as many dice as you can and keep those TNs in the 4 range.

I'll echo the earlier comments about limiting the Resources allocation at character gen as a way of maintaining a "gritty" game. If you use point-buy from the companion, you could even lower the number of overall points available, which will limit other types of augmentation (Physical Adepts, spell-slinger) as well.

As for lotsa dice vs. low target number, in general I've found a lower target number to be more effective - in Shadowrun, it's better to hurt an opponent severely, as quickly as possible (so they have penalties before they have a chance to inflict penalties on you).

It's situational, however, as mentioned above, due to dodges and armor/damage soaking. Dodging can go either way: If I'm shooting someone with a lot of dodge dice, I either need to 1) hit with so many successes he can't dodge (meaning I want a low TN) or 2) shoot a bunch of times so he has to spread his combat pool among a bunch of shots. But if I have a low power weapon and/or the opponent has a lot of armor, a smaller number of hits with lots of successes is far, far better.

There's also the matter of "sweet spots" in the target number spectrum. IIRC, you can't have a target number lower than 2, so if you have TN reductions (from a smartlink, etc.) you might as well take a couple points of penalties in exchange for more attacks or damage. Also, if your TN is going to be a 6, might as well take on another point or two - TN 6 and 7 statistically are the same, and you're not significantly reducing your chances at TN 8, either. Much above that, though, and it's a risky proposition even with lots of dice.

From personal experience, one of the most effective combat characters I ever ran was a physad sporting two pistols. Laser sights, gas-venting, custom grips and ambidexterity (physad power or a trait or something) offset many of the target number increases and I would tailor the number of shots and whether to use both guns based on keeping my TN in either the 2-3 or 6-8 range. Lots and lots of one-shot kills with that character, which in my mind is about the most satisfying thing about Shadowrun 3 - guns are deadly!

I suppose you guys are probably right. I do love me some good house rules, but I guess reducing the resources allocated by the priority table is probably the simplest and most logical route. I'm still tempted to cut down on essence loss and allow initiative dice/reaction/combat pool dice to be purchased in some manner to allow non-cybered characters to stay viable and allow for a proliferation of lower powered cyberware, but I'll have to think on that some more.

If I cut back equipment (or just use the character builder option from the SR companion), should I also cut back skill and attribute points?

I'll also have to watch out for deckers/riggers - any suggestions on that front? Should I lower the cost of the lower end rigging devices/decks/programs? Make sure that I scale back the IC and other countermeasures?

Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate the perspective you are bringing.

I'm not too concerned with changing the setting; I want a gritty game. I find that a lot of cyberware, like a lot of magic items in D&D, tends to disrupt my sense of grittiness, so I want to make cyberware less effective to a certain extent. I have a hard time with a guy sporting a million nuyen in gear running the shadows for 10k a pop.

Don't forget that just because some chummer has 1 mill in tech in his lousy self doesn't mean he paid for any of it. You still need yen to have a place to live and food to eat and that's motivation enough to do any kind of shadow work, especially when your rolling about with a large investment of stolen Ares tech inside you.

I suppose you guys are probably right. I do love me some good house rules, but I guess reducing the resources allocated by the priority table is probably the simplest and most logical route. I'm still tempted to cut down on essence loss and allow initiative dice/reaction/combat pool dice to be purchased in some manner to allow non-cybered characters to stay viable and allow for a proliferation of lower powered cyberware, but I'll have to think on that some more.

Allowing limited resources will "fix" the reaction/initiative problem you're worried about to a strong extent. If the most expensive augmentation your runners are looking at is boosted reflexes level 1, they're going to be hard-pressed to hit anything more than about reaction 7 + 2d6 Initiative (two initiative passes). Also don't forget that the system is balanced to a degree with the complex action dynamic. One complex action is allowed per round (not per initiative phase) which means Mr. Slow But Steady has a real chance if he's firing full auto, entering melee, or casting spells.

If I cut back equipment (or just use the character builder option from the SR companion), should I also cut back skill and attribute points?

The easiest way to do this is to use the point-buy system (or the alternate systems listed in the Companion) and both put a cap on the highest resources one can spend on any given category AND reduce the number of points they get. I forget the exact numbers, but I believe the Companion provides some good point-build points for grittier campaigns. The point-buy system takes care of needing to cap skill and attribute points because they simply don't have as many points to deal with.

I'll also have to watch out for deckers/riggers - any suggestions on that front? Should I lower the cost of the lower end rigging devices/decks/programs? Make sure that I scale back the IC and other countermeasures?

My suggestion is to let players know they can hire a decker, but you'd rather not have to run them in campaign. Most groups I know of are more than happy to work with this change (since Deckers are SO damned annoying to run and play with). This is one thing 4E did really well with Shadowrun, they brought Decking into the run more dynamically and forced deckers to run with the group instead of sitting in a room, making the players wait an hour for them to do a 10 second run, and then getting to play too.

As for riggers, that's a really good question. Riggers require more resources by far, but are easy to fit into a campaign (since drones can be run like PCs). Capping resources at 150k nuyen might allow somebody to build a reasonable rigger, but it would be really tight (and they'd be forced to work with lower-end non-super-augmented equipment). Perhaps make them play by the same rules for character generation but give the runners an opportunity to pick up a GMC Bulldog in the first run?

Hope this helps.

Bearing in mind that the last time I seriously played Shadowrun was in college, and that was the first edition days...

We definitely found with time that combat turned into an initiative escalation race. You either cranked it up high enough via cyberware or spells that you could get into the 3 actions per round range, or you resigned yourself to sitting out for a while when combat broke out. It was pretty disheartening.

Towards the end of our Shadowrun days, we started up a new batch of characters, and we did as you suggest above and put some hard caps on what you could buy to bump up your reflexes. Suddenly, we had a street sammy with Boosted 1 who was an utter fragging nightmare... and yet the rest of us got to play, too. It was a great balance.

I know 3rd improved the initiative situation over 1st - acting every 10 initiative counts rather than 7, everyone gets a first round before the extra actions kick in - but I think the overall lesson is still applicable. I'd worry less about getting the mundanes reaction scores up, and really just cap they implants, possibly upping the cost of the lower end stuff. And don't forget to apply similar adjustments to physical adepts and spellcasters.

We found every broken corner of Shadowrun first edition the hard way and houseruled the hell out of it, but it still remains my favorite system ever. I may get a 3rd ed game going sometime, but I'll be houseruling the dice to fix the TN 6-7 step a bit... =)

We found every broken corner of Shadowrun first edition the hard way and houseruled the hell out of it, but it still remains my favorite system ever. I may get a 3rd ed game going sometime, but I'll be houseruling the dice to fix the TN 6-7 step a bit... =)

Not to start a version war (because Gods know how much we love those things), but frankly this is some of what SR4 got right. SR2 basically followed nearly identical rules to SR1 (except weapon staging, which went bye-bye). SR3 was exceptionally well done and I played it for years (and loved it), but it kept some of the fundamental problems with the SR system, especially in combat. SR4 seems to have fixed things to a certain degree. It still has a couple of the problems, but one thing I've noticed when I played it is that combat _feels_ the same, but _plays_ a lot faster.

One way to fix things nicely though is to clarify what fits into a complex action, or letting those who only get one action know that complex actions become more powerful (full-auto anyone?) if you select well. Heck, entering melee with the opponent with the highest initiative is a great way to neuter the fact that they're getting three initiative passes.

Howdy folks. I realize this is generally off topic, but given that the brain trust in residence here is both responsive and insightful, I'd figure I'd see what you knew.

First, a quick rundown of the SR Rules that I'm puzzling over:

** spoiler omitted **...

OKAY! Just a little clarification that may (or may not) alter some of your opinions about balance issues....

You get ONE Complex Action...OR...TWO Simple Actions.

You can fire ONCE with a weapon as a Simple Action NOT twice. The second shot has an increased TN. It is infinitely better to Call the Shot with the first Simple, and then DRILL them with the second.

The Karma pool is VERY powerful! It is the core of PC power creep in SR1 to SR3. It's similar to action points.....but you can re-roll ALL failed dice in a test MORE THAN ONCE for a single action by spending scaling amounts of Karma Pool. That is where it is at.

I applaud your attempts to balance Initiative, it is the greatest game breaker of them all. It forces players (who want to PLAY and survive!) to build ONLY characters with high Initiative. It gets old. And the rounds drag ENDLESSLY. Personally, I would turn more toward lowering the high Init builds so most people get one or two Turns.

And, finally, lower TN is always better. Lots of shots from light weapons (and most Full Auto weapons have a low Power) will bounce off the armor your players will inevitably gear up with. Called shots with shotgun slugs are the most powerful (concealable) tactics. Or sniper fire.

Our most notoriously successful PC in many years of SR is an Ork (high body no penalties) armed with two bursting heavy pistols with APDS ammo....and a Karma Pool well over 20! It was brutal.

I like SR4, as it has solved many of these issues. It isn't perfect by any means, but it is well done and slick in presentaion.

Hope this helps,

Cheers