Shadowrun

[Chimera]

So... I have been playing a fair bit of Shadowrun returns lately.

And as expected it has kicked my brain into gear on ideas.

I consolidated some of my old notes for using Sydney in a campaign into a Google map. Here is my rough start.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zrdvINkoVGQ4.kBKZ9q2n2PQM&usp=sharing

Feel free to add stuff to the PC layer - even just comment or notes. Be careful with the overlay layer - if they are on they can be easy to drag.

I must admit i do love this little maps application, its amazing the weird stuff you can find. Like the buried military bunkers under Bankstown.

[Loswaith]

That kinda cool, and useful for places using modern day style maps.

[Chimera]

Everyone seemed quite interested in doing Shadowrun, so just posting up some of my working documents:

I mentioned i was wanting to start low but have accelerated builds, here are my notes for this:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DHkVoMAUOB0jBH-LPzoipmyoJXBXzBOcb0_3eZAX6Qc/edit?usp=sharing
I need to build some characters with this and test the table on page 1 is viable.

Here are some rules for building your very own lizard changeling:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_VGouXe5ei3MZ7Fo59qAqkGdGn8cM2uHSBYUAtHJVg/edit?usp=sharing
Because flamboyant lizards living on the side of the river doing trade is the done thing.

I'm looking to do something about culture, generally its a mixed bag of cultures thrown together.

I'm looking to write up some stuff about magic and the mana landscape, detail storms a little. Most wizards are Hermetic (euro), Shamans (Locals, natives), Wuxing (Asian) or Chaos Magic (popular new trend).

I will also do a corp and shadow landscape write up.

[LaughingMage]

Seems really cool. Would love to talk more about the landscape in a group setting, like we did with the creation of the borderlands.

[Loswaith]

A couple of anomalies:

Priority C Attributes:
In your final priority take is there seems little reason to take priority C for attributes, D is only one point less and most gain that back in edge if they take C for meta-humanity, or alternatively taking skills/resources as C instead of D give a lot more as well.

Lizardman:
The social limit penalty kind of implies that these guys are bad at social interactions, rather than actually just received badly (not sure if shadowrun even has that distinction). 
  There is also no mechanical indication to instill that they are more social out side of flavour text, while the social reduction for freak flaws and the social limit penalty mechanically indicating more towards the inverse of that.  I'm not sure if there is any room in the trait mix-up however to incorporate any kind of social mechanical support (even something simple like a charisma boost could help support that gregarious nature).

[Chimera]

Oops, even looking at my maths for the other attributes they don't add up, it's supposed to be the same as the base book, I will re-meth it later and check. For now assume it's 16.

Very good point on the freak quality. I was just trying to fit them in with what was in the books. Realistically the penalty is due to prejudice, and that is in the core book under social skills in which case you would say the penalty only occurs in interaction where you are dealing with a person prejudiced specifically to changelings. Which realistically would not be to common. Also you could use it maybe for surprise responded on initial introductions. This would otherwise be very odd given they have there own community and they would all have penalties interacting with each other due to there strange appearance that they all share
I will look a bit further and right that in.

[Chimera]

Ok, fixed attributes, some very wrong numbers there. Thanks for picking that up.

Also, revised the freaks modifiers section. Applies in place of a prejudice modifier. Also grants a distinctive style.
Realistically the distinctive style may just lead people to assume your from refuge, even if your not. And if you are, safety in numbers still applies.

I should add something about qualities, maybe some kind of gregarious quality exists.

Also, they would have picked up Sperethial as a language, as it would be strangely easier to speak (T'scrang was a derivative of elvish)

[Chimera]

Ok, I put some actual though to my addiction house rules after reading Chrome Flesh.

Here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DHkVoMAUOB0jBH-LPzoipmyoJXBXzBOcb0_3eZAX6Qc/edit?usp=docslist_api

Basically, there is a body of material on drugs both chemical, magical and technological. I don't want to write them out of the game, but something needs to be in place to cover the chance that you pick up an addiction. As such, opposed test on the spot with no tracking.

[Chimera]

Not sure if link works, here is text:

Ok, rethinking addiction tests.

First, what is sacred.
1) Addicted qualities - this is core.
2) Drug addiction ratings and thresholds - re-doing this is too intensive.
3) I don't want is bookkeeping or flow charts.

Ok, the core is that when you use we resolve addiction straight away.

Re-thinking this, the logical time to test is when the effects of the drug wear off.

This is cyberpunk, there are lots of drugs, and I want it to be a viable thing to do.

So right now, the addition quality acts as a time track. Really all I want to know is does the addiction get worse. When looking at addiction it's a complex thing so why try to simulate it.

So I have an addiction rating, that looks like a power or strength, and a threshold. If you test vs the threshold the strength does not factor in. What if it was an opposed test. Vs addiction rating or addiction rating x2.

So an average competent would have 2*4 dice to resist. Keeping physical or mental limit. Kamakazi is very addictive, at 9. Using 9*2 would be too harsh.  But this is a valid idea that archives my three goals above.

So, my rule right now is as follows:

When the effects of a drug wear off make an addiction test. This is an opposed test using BODY+WILL for physical addiction or LOGIC+WILL vs physiological addiction. This is opposed by the drugs ratings as ADDICTION RATING [THRESHOLD]. Increase the addiction rating by 1 for every other drug you have used while that drug was active (replacing the speed balling and drug interactions rule from Chrome Flesh). This roll may use edge as per normal.

Generally the GM should/may ignore testing on any drug with a rating of 5 or less. Only if use of such items is constant should the GM call for a test.

So, it's easy to avoid addiction, but it's very random. All you need to do is glitch and you pick up a negative quality. Edge can be used, but now it's taking up your edge.

Also most drugs have a wear off penalty, all have a cost and they must be roleplaying (this last one is key).

[Loswaith]

There will always need to be some kind of book keeping for addictions and drug use. I gather though your goal is to minimise the book keeping involved.

 On similar lines to what Kane was mentioning about MoS effect, you could work addiction more as a number game, similar to warhammer insanity at it's core but more fluid.

Anytime you use (or the positive effect ends), you make a resistance test (on whatever stats as appropriate).  You then gain a 'Toxin Level' equal to the addiction rating minus successes.  When your Toxin Level increases to a certain point (say 10 per individual drug or say 15-20 for collective drug use), you become addicted (with a test at that point vs the threshold) to whatever tipped you over the edge.

Each week of no drug use (or the end of each week even with drug use) would reduce the toxin level by some value (most seem to be 3 weeks without use to become 'clean', so you could in theory use no drug for 3 weeks removing all toxin level).  This could be anything from 1-3 points or some number based on body/willpower.

In this way things like soycaf, or minor drugs would take a lot of abuse to end up addicted (bad rolls could eventually add up), but basically be trivial most of the time (as they should be).  While harder drugs have more threat.

If you wanted Addiction Threshold to be more influential you could have it that you need a minimum of that in successes (for this to count for 3+ successes to get any reduction to the toxin level of kamikaze or cram, while long haul or zen would count all successes from the first).

In essence this means that you only really need book keeping to track a current toxin level for drug use (like most basic recording on characters), while it could increase the use of drugs on the whole.

With good stats a character could effectively get close to the point they can just use drugs frequently with little chance to get addicted (not all that unfeasible a situation), however that could be a slippery slope, should they accumulate some bad resistance rolls.

This also tends to mean if you frequently use a mix of drugs you could be quite likely to become addicted anything you use.  While not likely to become addicted for some single use every so often.

While slightly more complex in use, the toxin level inherently takes care of a lot of the book keeping for time tracking with book keeping not anymore complex than damage tracking.

[Kaneski]

Edit: All clarified re: drugs

[Kaneski]

So. I built a gun dude, so obviously - been looking at gun rules. Again.

One big thing is cover rules, because it's the natural enemy of firearms. Particularly the degrees of cover up to and including barrier rules. Below is my summary of the cover rules (p. 190) and barrier rules (p. 197-8). Maybe this should be a combat printout or something...


There seems to be 3 key components to the bonuses/penalties as result of cover.
1) Whether the defender can see the attacker.
The key contradiction here is between p. 197 "hidden defender is considered unaware" as a blanket statement and p. 189 which says that the unaware rules "don't apply to defenders already engaged in combat". p.189 rules also defers to 'superior position' rules, which give +2 to the attacker if he 'has the jump' on the defender.

This largely affects whether the defender gets a reaction+intuition roll against a ranged attack - 'unaware' characters don't get the roll.

Obviously things like screen shares, sensors and other see-through-and-around-wall gadgets make you aware. My suggested compromise for the rest is that the defender should get the defense roll, if the attack is expected, even if unseen. The attacker must change some aspect of their attack - pattern, position, weapon used, etc... largely common sense stuff, in order to count the defender 'unaware'.


2) Whether the attacker can see the defender.
Blind fire modifier of -6 is consistent in the rules. The combination of attacker's position, defender's position and the intervening cover/terrain makes this an easy yes/no.

Obviously, transparent materials provide barrier protection, but no concealment.


3) The degree of intervening cover between the attacker and defender (being <25%, 25-50%, 50-99%, 100%), assuming the defender took a 'take cover' simple action.
Here, the only distinction necessary is between 100% cover and everything else. With 100% cover, the attacker cannot see the defender. With everything else - the defender gets the defense bonus as normal.

The take cover action (simple) should be used by the defender to change the degree of cover. So, leaning out of full cover is a simple action. Moving back into full cover can be achieved with your movement points, but no bonus is conferred.



Possible scenarios
1. Defender behind 100% cover, 'Take Cover' action, attack expected: Attacker -6 to attack roll. Defender +4 to defense roll. 1/2/3/4 damage to cover for 1/3/6/10 bullets, and this damage is subtracted from damage to defender.

2. Defender behind 100% cover, No 'Take Cover' action, attack expected: Attacker -6 to attack roll. Defender unmodified. 1/2/3/4 damage to cover for 1/3/6/10 bullets, and this damage is subtracted from damage to defender.

3. Defender behind 100% cover, 'Take Cover action irrelevant, attack unexpected: Attacker -6 to attack roll. No defense roll at all. 1/2/3/4 damage to cover for 1/3/6/10 bullets, and this damage is subtracted from damage to defender.

4. Defender behind <100% cover, 'Take Cover' action, attack always expected: Attacker unmodified. Defender +4/+2 to defense roll. Barrier rules only if attack roll = defense roll.

5. Defender behind <100% cover, No 'Take Cover' action, attack always expected: Attacker unmodified. Defender unmodified. Barrier rules only if attack roll = defense roll.

6. Defender behind 100%, but partially transparent cover: as 4 and 5 above, but barrier rules apply to every attack.

7. Defender behind 100% transparent cover, 'Take Cover' action irrelevant: As 5 above, but barrier rules apply to all attacks.


Again - main distinction is 100% cover vs <100% cover. <100% is pretty clear. it's the 100% cover that's conflicting.

[Chimera]

Ok, wow this is a mess.

I read forums and even the developers responses conflicted. The more I read the more confused I got. I read your response early on, but then decided to write my own summary, and surprisingly got pretty much the same thing. My summary is one clarification (0 below) and two checks in combat.

0) you can't be unaware once combat starts to those involved in the combat. This is from section "defender unaware of attack" (p.189). In particular the second sentence that you can't be unaware once combat starts, clarifying that this is in regards to those in the fight. The first sentence is ambiguous but covered by surprise tests.

1) do you apply blind fire modifier? Ie you are aware of your target but they are not visible. This applies to attacking someone in full cover and firing from full cover (pop out hand fire a few shots pop it back in). The action "attacker firing from cover using imaging device" (p.177) maybe be used by a person in full cover.

2) Did the defender use the "take cover" (p.166) action? If so they get the cover modifiers. The only way to get cover modifiers is to use this action. If not you may be passing by cover but you have not stopped to enjoy the benefits.

Everything outside the above is really just confusing this core.

I think I might build a combat checklist for everyone to use.

[Kaneski]

Even simpler, cool. I like it. Basically ignore the line in barrier rules about defender being unaware - everything else falls into place.

[Chimera]

Yeah, note that the examples in the book seem to favor unaware being an occupancy of full cover, but that's just crazy stuff. Also, the area effect examples are all kinds of wrong, so I'm just not so concerned about the in book examples.

Sorry about the slow reply too, I have been scratching my head over this one since I read your post.

Oh, and I had a crack at a combat cheat sheet, I will put it in a doc and link it.

[Chimera]

Ok, does this link work? I often type stuff in Evernote on the phone, so am not sure how it's share functions work.

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s291/sh/5fad29cc-3c18-4377-ac0e-2d62e54487e8/b5d79c1aee4bf5d90ecb95695e349095

[Kaneski]

Yeah, note that the examples in the book seem to favor unaware being an occupancy of full cover, but that's just crazy stuff. Also, the area effect examples are all kinds of wrong, so I'm just not so concerned about the in book examples.

Sorry about the slow reply too, I have been scratching my head over this one since I read your post.

Oh, and I had a crack at a combat cheat sheet, I will put it in a doc and link it.

Yeah, NP. SR complexity and all that.

Link works. Works as quick summary.

[Chimera]

Good game the other day and off to a positive start.

I mentioned during character creation a list of assumptions to the game, and Chris reminded me I broke one of them.

This is not a criticism to players or anything, but basically the concept was - no players harming players. The reason I had this on my list was that in the past players have thrown grenades at, knocked out or accidentally injuring other players and this has caused friction. More importantly it derails the game. As it did on Saturday, regardless of who did what. So, I am turning friendly fire on. This is that no player can perform an action that causes 'inconvenience' to another player. Being exposing them to an harmful effect, damage, delays, theft, etc... I will loosen this as I go, but for now am just going to apply it, work around it and find another way basically. The time spent on disputes and hard feelings is better spent on other approaches. The time spent even arguing that you want to harm another player is also best spent finding another way.

More importantly I need to write up these and my setting rules/notes in a people FAQ style document. The above will be in it. I will get cracking on that.

On another note, I am taking a serious look at the supression fire rules. In almost every game I have run and every fight it gets used. And I don't like the rules as the sit, in particular:
• they apply a sustained area effect to the play area, this is difficult to track.
• the psychological effect is entirely unresisted. Light machine pistol fire that can't hurt you can still impose a hefty penalty to your dice pool.
• edge is key to avoiding the damage and grunts lack this.
• it imposes no positional modifiers or awareness requirement on the attacker. This can get wierd if you choose the fire from full cover.

Overall it benefits first action characters with edge - which is players. Also it's trying to simulate something that does not translate well to tabletop. Also as a GM If I overuse it the game gets dull fast, the same as if I put invisible snipers on roofs everywhere, it slow the game  down to paranoid wall hopping. This is Shadowrun and my games are at least half 'pink mowhawk'.
Currently I am looking at a non-area version that is resisted with composure and is single target, or multi target with split pools.

On a side note I am going to be reviewing area effects in general and making sure they don't dominate the game. So I will make sure I am on top of interrupt actions to avoid area effects and apply them to NPCs.

[Chimera]

This replaces suppressive fire (p.179)
 
Suppressive fire takes a complex action, uses ten rounds of ammo per target and ignores recoil. This action maintains burst fire at or near the target to lower there moral and willingness to engage in return fire. It has two parts, a psycological attack and physical attack.

The attacker must be aware of the target and not in full cover. The target must be more than 20 meters from the attacker and actively involved in the combat (concious and able to return fire, ie not astraly projecting or VR matrix) and not engaged in melee (they have more immediate threats to worry about). Use the multiple attacks free actions to supress more than two targets p.164 (& p.196). All targets must be within 10 meters of each other.

The target must actually be threatened by the attack. This is normally obvious, but if in doubt test by buying hits (4 dice = hit) with the targets Body + Armor vs the attacks base damage, if the net hits are zero the target just laughs off the supression attempt and it automatically fails.

The effect lasts until the attackers next action phase, and is considered uninterrupted if immediately continued although new rolls need to be made.

Initial test.
The attacker makes a (weapon Skill) + Agility [Accuracy] test with normal modifiers for firing. Note the total hits

Check psychological impact.
First check for the pshyological impact. The defender resist this effect with a composure test (Charisma + Willpower) reducing the net hits. Where net hits are positive the target is subject to a dice pool penalty equal to the net hits. Where a target is subjected to multiple supression a only the largest modifier counts.

Target reaction to supression
The target may now choose how to respond to supression, they can:
• do nothing and take the hit.
• drop prone if they have a spare free action.
• use the hit the dirt interrupt action (p.168) if they don't have a free action available.
• use the dive for cover action (RG p.124) to get into cover of it is available. This counts as a take cover action.

Test to be hit
If the target is not prone or in cover they risk getting hit. Make a defence roll Reaction + Intuition (can use active defences) and determine net hits. If the result is positive the target is hit taking damage equal to the base damage of the weapon.

Notes:
Yes I am coming down hard on supression fire, these kinds of rules are thematic for military simulation games, which is not my view of Shadowrun. This is the second edition to have it and the first to try and give it a psychological attack.

Just firing at an area where you think targets are is just a narrative effect. Cross off some bullets (20) and the GM will narrate what happens. If the GM thinks someone could get hit he can test as per above to determine an outcome. In combat things become more targeted.
Why 20 meters? It's the point at which going prone gives cover (defender/target has good cover p.190). Also point blank supression when someone could directly engage sounds counterintuitive.

No edge on defence? Correct, general grunts lack it, making this action too effective vs them. I see nothing wrong with a standard defence test in this situation that warrants a change.

Supression does not work in melee combat? No it does not. This attack action is for a psychological impact and if someone is threatening you with a sword in your face that overrides the supression effect, as your already under threat. Just make an attack on them, they will notice.

[Loswaith]

No offence but you would have been better off just removing suppression fire, since the net effect is shooting an opponent is just the better option now as the damage they sustain will likely give them more penalties (for less bullets) than trying to suppress them, presuming you don't take them out of the equation completely with that attack.

The issue is more that suppression is about the only way to reduce the effectiveness of enemies without using magic, flash packs or direct damage.  Suppression isn't all that difficult to counter either with the right tactics.

Also while yes it is better in the hands of players who have edge (that you only regain at 1 per day) frequently enemy numbers are also stacked against the players, thus enemies can afford to have the suppression countered (they are after all a hurdle), while players often will need to use it to not be shredded themselves by those greater numbers.

If you look at that first fight without the suppression it would likely have gone a lot worse for the PCs side.