Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Banshee on <06-26-19/1219:38>
-
I do love that she has the battle cry of riggers everywhere, “Stop shooting my drones!” Overall seems decent enough. Good skills, relevant stats, and some secondary roll skills. I did notice her knowledge skills didn’t have a rating, so that’s interesting.
I haven’t unpacked my box yet, so I can’t compare her to the others, but overall seems like a solid intro character for quick start. Looking forward to the informational blog posts!
[/quote]
yeah, knowledge skills are rankless now ... you just pick things you know stuff about that then allow the GM to say "you know ..." or give a bonus to action skills when applicable "get a bonus on your perception check to find the hidden camera because you have Knowledge Security Systems", so no need for ranks
-
I do love that she has the battle cry of riggers everywhere, “Stop shooting my drones!” Overall seems decent enough. Good skills, relevant stats, and some secondary roll skills. I did notice her knowledge skills didn’t have a rating, so that’s interesting.
I haven’t unpacked my box yet, so I can’t compare her to the others, but overall seems like a solid intro character for quick start. Looking forward to the informational blog posts!
yeah, knowledge skills are rankless now ... you just pick things you know stuff about that then allow the GM to say "you know ..." or give a bonus to action skills when applicable "get a bonus on your perception check to find the hidden camera because you have Knowledge Security Systems", so no need for ranks
[/quote]
Sweet! My group has always encouraged knowledge skills, especially interest grade ones, because they really help round out a character, and not having to worry about points in them helps.
-
Knowledge skills were too much a 'chargen or bust' costwise for me so I like the sound of flat ones.
-
So are languages binary also?
-
Just another useful detail that did not contribute to complexity getting thrown out with the bath water.
Languages in prior editions were a core aspect of facing with many bits of ware and qualities interacting with them.
Now that’s all gone for no benefit.
Yaay!
-
So are languages binary also?
Not so much. At the least, there's a difference between her English language proficiency rating of N and the others.
-
yeah, knowledge skills are rankless now ... you just pick things you know stuff about that then allow the GM to say "you know ..." or give a bonus to action skills when applicable "get a bonus on your perception check to find the hidden camera because you have Knowledge Security Systems", so no need for ranks
So how the heck do you differentiate between someone who knows a smattering on a subect, and someone who is a world leading expert?
-
yeah, knowledge skills are rankless now ... you just pick things you know stuff about that then allow the GM to say "you know ..." or give a bonus to action skills when applicable "get a bonus on your perception check to find the hidden camera because you have Knowledge Security Systems", so no need for ranks
So how the heck do you differentiate between someone who knows a smattering on a subect, and someone who is a world leading expert?
Whoever's character has the more impressive CV.
Apologies for the snark, I couldn't resist making the joke :D
In 6e having a knowledge skill presumes a certain level of expertise. The sorts of things you know only a little bit about don't rise to the level of a knowledge skill. Surely you don't think Emu lacks even so much as a smattering of knowledge in any topics except Seattle Geography and Smugglers' Routes? Given her background story, if she were a 5e character she "should" have knowledge skills in Australia, Aboriginal Rights, Mafia, Military, and many others. But for 6e those are presumably the smattering level expertise as opposed to her great knowledge of Seattle's layout and its popular smuggling routes.
I doubt most people took a "proper" number of knowledge skills, even at low ranks, to adequately reflect the breadth of characters' experiences and interests. Take me for example: I'm not saying I'm the only one who plays "proper" and takes a whole lot of knowledge skills... I have a SRM character who did a CMP in Nashville. That character is never going back to Nashville. I'd rather spend 1 karma on almost anything other than Area Knowledge: Nashville. But since my character WAS there and experienced a shadowrun there, by not spending that 1 karma I'm in effect artificially forcing the character to forget everything she learned about Nashville. I kind of like dispensing with that. Either you know enough about a subject for it to be relevant to the situation at hand or you don't. Binary works for me in this context.
-
yeah, knowledge skills are rankless now ... you just pick things you know stuff about that then allow the GM to say "you know ..." or give a bonus to action skills when applicable "get a bonus on your perception check to find the hidden camera because you have Knowledge Security Systems", so no need for ranks
So how the heck do you differentiate between someone who knows a smattering on a subect, and someone who is a world leading expert?
Whoever's character has the more impressive CV.
Apologies for the snark, I couldn't resist making the joke :D
In 6e having a knowledge skill presumes a certain level of expertise. The sorts of things you know only a little bit about don't rise to the level of a knowledge skill. Surely you don't think Emu lacks even so much as a smattering of knowledge in any topics except Seattle Geography and Smugglers' Routes? Given her background story, if she were a 5e character she "should" have knowledge skills in Australia, Aboriginal Rights, Mafia, Military, and many others. But for 6e those are presumably the smattering level expertise as opposed to her great knowledge of Seattle's layout and its popular smuggling routes.
I doubt most people took a "proper" number of knowledge skills, even at low ranks, to adequately reflect the breadth of characters' experiences and interests. Take me for example: I'm not saying I'm the only one who plays "proper" and takes a whole lot of knowledge skills... I have a SRM character who did a CMP in Nashville. That character is never going back to Nashville. I'd rather spend 1 karma on almost anything other than Area Knowledge: Nashville. But since my character WAS there and experienced a shadowrun there, by not spending that 1 karma I'm in effect artificially forcing the character to forget everything she learned about Nashville. I kind of like dispensing with that. Either you know enough about a subject for it to be relevant to the situation at hand or you don't. Binary works for me in this context.
I can't count the number of knowledge skills I only had 1 or 2 ranks in because I had too many! The lower amount of starting knowledge points in 5th meant I always had to choose between higher level but only game relevant skills, or lower levels with interest skills.
-
I kind of like dispensing with that. Either you know enough about a subject for it to be relevant to the situation at hand or you don't. Binary works for me in this context.
so you go from untalented "I researched it on the matrix" amateur, to "no one knows more than me" with one flat purchase. No way to differentiate between the world leading expert in a knowledge skill covered area and someone who just got a basic degre? ::)
-
I kind of like dispensing with that. Either you know enough about a subject for it to be relevant to the situation at hand or you don't. Binary works for me in this context.
so you go from untalented "I researched it on the matrix" amateur, to "no one knows more than me" with one flat purchase. No way to differentiate between the world leading expert in a knowledge skill covered area and someone who just got a basic degre? ::)
There's also no way to differentiate between a technically skilled artist, an emotionally authentic artist, and a highly original artist. These are very different, but the distinction doesn't really matter to Shadowrun. I can easily see that a binary distinction between people who do know about the subject, and those who don't, could be enough for this game. If it makes it easier for players to justify picking up new knowledges to reflect their characters' life experience, then it could be a good thing.
-
I kind of like dispensing with that. Either you know enough about a subject for it to be relevant to the situation at hand or you don't. Binary works for me in this context.
so you go from untalented "I researched it on the matrix" amateur, to "no one knows more than me" with one flat purchase. No way to differentiate between the world leading expert in a knowledge skill covered area and someone who just got a basic degre? ::)
Basically, yes, if that's the way you're going to insist on viewing it. It's not like it matters in a mechanical sense how much a PhD knows versus a Bachelor does on a topic. What matters is whether the character knows something that's relevant to something related to the current shadowrun, not how much the character knows overall on the topic.
And for that matter, I fail to see how this is a problem. Which runner knows more about Astrophysics or Zulu Culture is an answer that will practically never be relevant in game play. But if two players whose characters have the same knowledge skill have to know who's character was a bigger help to the team learning plot clues based on that shared knowledge skill, then they can roleplay it out or even just roll an opposed test without the game engine needing to preserve ranks in knowledge skills. I already explained why I think there's benefit in getting rid of them.
There's also no way to differentiate between a technically skilled artist, an emotionally authentic artist, and a highly original artist. These are very different, but the distinction doesn't really matter to Shadowrun. I can easily see that a binary distinction between people who do know about the subject, and those who don't, could be enough for this game. If it makes it easier for players to justify picking up new knowledges to reflect their characters' life experience, then it could be a good thing.
Have a +1.
-
And for that matter, I fail to see how this is a problem.
I do.
Mr. Johnson has hired the team to extract Bob, the worlds leading expert anaerobic mold spores from Megacorp Zeta to supply the boss with the answer to a formula.
Once the meeting is over, Skin Rash the murder hobo leans in to his team. "Uh, guys... No need to do the job. I took anaerobic mold spores as an elective at Hard Knocks U. We got this."
Have you EVER been in a position in 5e (or any other edition) where one of the PCs had a knowledge skill that replicates the knowledge level of a world class scientist? or to do whatever macguffin-y task "only" the plot-designated NPC is supposed to be able to do? And so that we're talking apples to apples here, for 5e that'd be 8+ skill ranks in a knowledge skill ("You are a highly sought-after talent. Corporations seek you out (or extract you from other corporations), pg 131 SR5). Not just a knowledge skill 8+, but the exact correct knowledge skill Mr Johnson needs addressed?
And if so, was it more than once? Because if you said yes to the above, you're either lying or it's a hell of an outlier.
Your problem is you are defining it withing the group only, rather than take it out of that bubble.
Yeah, you have a point that rules for PCs may not translate well to NPCs.
So what. Seriously.
Players don't play NPCs. They play Shadowrunners. They don't play Doc Wagon medics, they don't play Lone Star beat cops, they don't play GOD agents. NPCs just sometimes don't conform to rules that govern PCs. So if the plot dictates that only the scientist Mr Johnson wants can solve the riddle, then only the scientist Mr Johnson wants can solve the riddle. OTOH if the GM wants to allow a runner with appropriate knowledge skills solve it in place of the scientist, then the runner can make a test. This stuff shouldn't be hard.
-
Hey admins!
Can we pull the posts about knowledge skills out of the rigger dossier discussion, so that can stay about riggers?
If one of y'all would be so kind as to peel out this (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29466.msg517819#msg517819), this (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29466.msg517823#msg517823), this (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29466.msg517840#msg517840), this (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29466.msg517871#msg517871), this (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29466.msg517873#msg517873), this (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29466.msg517886#msg517886), this (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29466.msg517887#msg517887), this (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29466.msg517888#msg517888), this (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29466.msg517892#msg517892), this (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29466.msg517907#msg517907), this (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29466.msg517908#msg517908), this (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29466.msg517909#msg517909), and this (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29466.msg517914#msg517914) over into this thread, we'd clean up that other one!
-
Carrying this over from the Rigger Dossier thread, in case things get moved about - inspite of the Rigger Dossier being the reason more people found out about how Knowledge Skills work in 6e.
Have you EVER been in a position in 5e (or any other edition) where one of the PCs had a knowledge skill that replicates the knowledge level of a world class scientist?
6e will.
Because either you don't have the Knowledge Skill, or you replicate the knowledge of a world class scientist. Just because there is no other level available. (At least that you are capable of talking about.)
Anything else, and you are trying to compare oranges to crayfish.
To use 5e, if a rank 1 in a Knowledge Skill indicated Masters Degree - I could say whole heartedily that I routinely met that criteria. Why rank 1? Because it is the binary opposite of rank 0, the same as having the Knowledge Skill in 6e.
NPCs just sometimes don't conform to rules that govern PCs.
And that is the single most myopic failure of all role playing game systems. If you believe otherwise, you haven't been paying attention for the last 25 years.
You have prospective players (some on these forums even) complaining that armor not preventing damage and impossible shots - at worst - impose a -2 Edge penalty (give 2 Edge to the target) defy all believeability and you somehow think that PCs living in a completely different environment from the rest of the game world is going to go over well?
Seriously?
What players want, more than just about anything else (assuming the system in question matches the story in their minds) is a game system that is consistent across all aspects of the game world.
If a player decides to make an Doctor of Archeology that Decks to make ends meet, and takes 3 different Archeology Knowledge Skills to represent his/her PhDs in those fields... They do not want to find out in game that the Knowledge Skills only represent the freshman course and that PhDs are only really handed out by the GM when the mood suits them.
That isn't to say that PhDs have to be handed out to anyone who takes a Knowledge Skill. It might suffice to have a Positive Quality titled Masters of [Knowledge Skill] that represents that. It can be so insanely expensive that no character would, even if they could, buy it a chargen. It could even have "GM Approval Only" as a requirement. All of that would likely suffice, because at least the player has a path towards what they want for their character.
Or, put another way, players really, really, really, want PC physics to match the rest of the game world physics.
When they don't, dissonense occurs.
-
...
6e will.
...
Actually, it won't. It's not that the difference between binging some documentary trideos and earning a PhD is gone, it's just that the difference is now moot. Differentiating how MUCH knowledge you have on a topic literally doesn't matter in the mechanic of how knowledge skills work in 6e. All that matters is do you know something relevant to what's going on in the shadowrun. Someone who only watched documentaries just might have watched the perfect episode and does know it. And the Professor who teaches the subject to doctorate students might have never bothered going into those particular weeds and might not know it.
...
Or, put another way, players really, really, really, want PC physics to match the rest of the game world physics.
When they don't, dissonense occurs.
Well, I don't know what to tell you because Shadowrun's always had rules that only apply to PCs or only to NPCs. Even in 5e, Spiders could do illegal matrix actions and not generate OS score. Doc Wagon surgeons can perform feats of healing PCs can't. Lone Star cops don't have to use the acquiring equipment rules to kit themselves out. Etc. Etc. Etc. And it's all the same reason: because they're NPCs and the PCs can't do the same things because they're not NPCs.
-
I'll admit, some of the problem is that knowledge skills were always a lot more subjective then active skills, since you could litterally just make up ones of your own on the spot. Even with the same level of overall knowledge people will know things differently.
Take three chummers who got a degree in English from Ares University. All have the mechanical level of 6 in the skill, with LOG of 5 and INT of 4 for arguments sake. All three could still play this up as being different from each other via roleplaying, with one focusing on things like sentence strucher and the nuts-an-bolts of who language works, while another focused his studies on story composition and writing. Both with the same dice pool but they know things about English differently from each other.
While it may be a problem when someone wants to recall facts about their knowledge with a skill roll, it also lends itself to players being creative with their knowledge skills once more, rather then focusing their few points into only "street useful" skills and ignoring any sort of character building interest things. Having a character with a knowledge of bonzi tree shaping is a fun and could be rewarded in game somehow without needed to roll separately for, or a character doesn't feel bad 'wasting' knowledge skills taking 20th century TTRPGs for his mage named Hoyle (actual reference, cause I'm a nerd).
Language skills though I'd probably still want to see a skill level on as I feel that's more mechanically important, but then again I can't think of more then one hand worth of examples of when that skill level distinction actually mattered in all my years of Shadowrun.
-
Topics split and merged.
-
ok, time for a brief tutorial I guess
Language skills - still have differentiating levels that represent how fluent you are. not as detailed as active skills but more so than knowledge skills. [Basic, Specialist, Expert, Native]
Knowledge skills don't need ranks to determine how much you know, as SSDR has said many times in this thread it is all about how you apply that knowledge to the situation. for example someone with a PhD in Neuroscience has the Neuroscience as a Knowledge skill but also has 7 or 8 ranks in the Biotech skill with probably an Expertise in Surgery ... then if the knowledge skill is applicable that means they could be rolling 13(8+3+2)+Logic in dice for whatever they are doing. And that is how you differentiate how "knowledgeable" someone is.
EDIT: just for some insight in our rationalization behind this change. We found that the vast majority of players either didn't invest much time or effort into it or didn't use them in actual game play. So know you just have 'areas of knowledge" that can effect what you do in game play without tracking another detailed skill list. The basis of these knowledge's are meant to be journeymen level (in other words you have solid applicable knowledge but not a dedicated extensive repository), CRB does not go into detail about that but it may be covered more in future books. In the meantime if you want or need to have more than that in a PC or NPC either one ... it is just a matter of roleplaying it.
-
Actually, it won't. It's not that the difference between binging some documentary trideos and earning a PhD is gone, it's just that the difference is now moot.
Now you're just being intellectually dishonest.
Well, I don't know what to tell you because Shadowrun's always had rules that only apply to PCs or only to NPCs.
And then you cite two examples that are clearly someone getting special privileges (privilege and inequality are an intrinsic part of Shadowrun) and a third that is just malarkey (PCs can heal just as well as any Doc Wagon surgeon, they just usually lack the skills and equipment to do so).
-
ok, time for a brief tutorial I guess
Language skills - still have differentiating levels that represent how fluent you are. not as detailed as active skills but more so than knowledge skills. [Basic, Specialist, Expert, Native]
Knowledge skills don't need ranks to determine how much you know, as SSDR has said many times in this thread it is all about how you apply that knowledge to the situation. for example someone with a PhD in Neuroscience has the Neuroscience as a Knowledge skill but also has 7 or 8 ranks in the Biotech skill with probably an Expertise in Surgery ... then if the knowledge skill is applicable that means they could be rolling 13(8+3+2)+Logic in dice for whatever they are doing. And that is how you differentiate how "knowledgeable" someone is.
So, Knowledge Skills in 6e don't really do anything themselves - and they have to piggyback on Active Skills?
That reads as if the Knowledge Skill doesn't have an Active Skill to piggyback on, (Such as nearly all Interest Knowledge Skills), there is no effect? Examples: Mathmatics (to bet more out of Math SPUs), Alcohol, [Music Genre], Trideo Shows, etc.
That seems unnecessarily complex compared to just pairing the Active Skill with Logic and calling it a day.
-
ok, time for a brief tutorial I guess
Language skills - still have differentiating levels that represent how fluent you are. not as detailed as active skills but more so than knowledge skills. [Basic, Specialist, Expert, Native]
Knowledge skills don't need ranks to determine how much you know, as SSDR has said many times in this thread it is all about how you apply that knowledge to the situation. for example someone with a PhD in Neuroscience has the Neuroscience as a Knowledge skill but also has 7 or 8 ranks in the Biotech skill with probably an Expertise in Surgery ... then if the knowledge skill is applicable that means they could be rolling 13(8+3+2)+Logic in dice for whatever they are doing. And that is how you differentiate how "knowledgeable" someone is.
So, Knowledge Skills in 6e don't really do anything themselves - and they have to piggyback on Active Skills?
That reads as if the Knowledge Skill doesn't have an Active Skill to piggyback on, (Such as nearly all Interest Knowledge Skills), there is no effect? Examples: Mathmatics (to bet more out of Math SPUs), Alcohol, [Music Genre], Trideo Shows, etc.
That seems unnecessarily complex compared to just pairing the Active Skill with Logic and calling it a day.
It's a bit more than that ... they do stuff like allow you to make a perception check to notice something just because of your knowledge skill or make a memory test to remember some little detail. It actually allows for far more diversity and actual in game use then just making a knowledge skill check to see what you know when used correctly. Overall it should be more about the synergy between what you know and what you do ... not just what you know.
-
So for Knowledge - Sprawl Gangs, you're Perception would get a +2 to spot the gangers in the firefight.
-
So for Knowledge - Sprawl Gangs, you're Perception would get a +2 to spot the gangers in the firefight.
not just spot them ... that would be a standard perception check but if you would be able to identify the gang members with that same check rather than using the 5E method of having to make a separate gang knowledge roll to see if you could after you spotted them
to flesh out that example ... without the knowledge skill runner A makes the check and sees the big showdown between a bunch of street punks, but runner B who has the sprawl gang knowledge skill makes the same check but know that is actually a 3way firefight between the Ancients, Halloweeners, and the Rusty Stilletos
-
ok, time for a brief tutorial I guess
Language skills - still have differentiating levels that represent how fluent you are. not as detailed as active skills but more so than knowledge skills. [Basic, Specialist, Expert, Native]
Knowledge skills don't need ranks to determine how much you know, as SSDR has said many times in this thread it is all about how you apply that knowledge to the situation. for example someone with a PhD in Neuroscience has the Neuroscience as a Knowledge skill but also has 7 or 8 ranks in the Biotech skill with probably an Expertise in Surgery ... then if the knowledge skill is applicable that means they could be rolling 13(8+3+2)+Logic in dice for whatever they are doing. And that is how you differentiate how "knowledgeable" someone is.
So, Knowledge Skills in 6e don't really do anything themselves - and they have to piggyback on Active Skills?
That reads as if the Knowledge Skill doesn't have an Active Skill to piggyback on, (Such as nearly all Interest Knowledge Skills), there is no effect? Examples: Mathmatics (to bet more out of Math SPUs), Alcohol, [Music Genre], Trideo Shows, etc.
That seems unnecessarily complex compared to just pairing the Active Skill with Logic and calling it a day.
I mean, how much does one roll Separately for interest skills nowadays? You could use those to give out bonuses or penalties to characters depending on circumstances. Trying to infiltrate a high society event? The knowledge of alcohols or fine wines could give you a bonus. Fast talking a guard to avoid suspicion? Maybe he’s got the latest Bring Your Slaughter to Work single paused and you can totally geek out with him about thrash bands and keep him at ease!
-
Do not like. I have built and many of my players have built characters who are experts on subjects but didn’t want to work under the confines of a Corp. and used running as a way to fund their research.
I don’t like the reasoning I’m Seeing either. The only thing that matters is how it effects the game? Nope, I’m roleplaying a character who may have attributes and skills of no relevance to the game. It’s about having the ability to make a complete character not a complete game device. It’s a rpg not a board game.
-
Do not like. I have built and many of my players have built characters who are experts on subjects but didn’t want to work under the confines of a Corp. and used running as a way to fund their research.
I don’t like the reasoning I’m Seeing either. The only thing that matters is how it effects the game? Nope, I’m roleplaying a character who may have attributes and skills of no relevance to the game. It’s about having the ability to make a complete character not a complete game device. It’s a rpg not a board game.
And now you can focus more on those without having to worry about number crunch. This gives a lot more incentive for people to “waste“ knowledge skills on interest or background information. The rating not being mechanical allows you to role-play more specifics regarding the types of things you do and don’t know inside each knowledge skill.
Let’s face it, how many character builds on the forum had purely interest skills on them?
-
Do not like. I have built and many of my players have built characters who are experts on subjects but didn’t want to work under the confines of a Corp. and used running as a way to fund their research.
I don’t like the reasoning I’m Seeing either. The only thing that matters is how it effects the game? Nope, I’m roleplaying a character who may have attributes and skills of no relevance to the game. It’s about having the ability to make a complete character not a complete game device. It’s a rpg not a board game.
And now you can focus more on those without having to worry about number crunch. This gives a lot more incentive for people to “waste“ knowledge skills on interest or background information. The rating not being mechanical allows you to role-play more specifics regarding the types of things you do and don’t know inside each knowledge skill.
Let’s face it, how many character builds on the forum had purely interest skills on them?
Forum builds imo are usually focussed on min maxing and not on building a character. Ranked knowledge skills allowed both style of characters and players to thrive. I Do not think this works as well for all styles of play.
I don’t think it needed to be super detailed maybe something like language skills as described. Familiarity, trained, expert, master. 4 ranks of it comes up in game a notation this needs a expert level of knowledge or whatever.
But on off with on being a journeyman level isn’t what I want.
On a note with language. I’d of gone basic, specialist, native, expert.
Plenty of native speakers are just okay at language. You have to train to become a expert. Maybe even but native in the 2nd spot.
-
Do not like. I have built and many of my players have built characters who are experts on subjects but didn’t want to work under the confines of a Corp. and used running as a way to fund their research.
I don't get how the two sentences are supposed to be related to each other. There's nothing stopping you from having a character who's a former (or ongoing, I suppose, if your GM is willing to go along) corp scientist.
Really, what's the problem in the guy playing Skin Rash the CyberHobo gets the same bonus to a knowledge skill check as you if he bothers to invest in the same knowledge skill as you? I mean, A) it's probably never going to happen anyway, people who play characters like Skin Rash the CyberHobo aren't likely to bother spending karma on Microbiology and B) even if he DOES, just because you're a world leader in microbiology and Skin Rash the CyberHobo mainly knows how to tell if the sour milk is still safe to drink, who cares WHO comes up with the clue based on microbial knowledge happens to positively affect the game? You're ostensibly both on the same team. If you can't get over Skin Rash the CyberHobo beating you on a knowledge-skill enhanced check (probably due to fluke luck, as Skin Rash doesn't sound like has has awesome mental stats and presumably you do) it speaks more to your ability to roleplay than there being a deficiency in the rules assumption. In my opinion. Why not roll with it and make it a point of roleplay. Get indignant in character. Or offer Skin Rash the opportunity to join you in the sterile lab for some research... who knows what's breeding in his festering sores afterall?
I don’t like the reasoning I’m Seeing either. The only thing that matters is how it effects the game? Nope, I’m roleplaying a character who may have attributes and skills of no relevance to the game. It’s about having the ability to make a complete character not a complete game device. It’s a rpg not a board game.
I'm not trying to twist your words... but honestly who cares about how knowledge skills affect things outside the game? That literally doesn't matter to the game.
-
B) even if he DOES, just because you're a world leader in microbiology and Skin Rash the CyberHobo mainly knows how to tell if the sour milk is still safe to drink, who cares WHO comes up with the clue based on microbial knowledge happens to positively affect the game? You're ostensibly both on the same team. If you can't get over Skin Rash the CyberHobo beating you on a knowledge-skill enhanced check (probably due to fluke luck, as Skin Rash doesn't sound like has has awesome mental stats and presumably you do) it speaks more to your ability to roleplay than there being a deficiency in the rules assumption. In my opinion. Why not roll with it and make it a point of roleplay. Get indignant in character. Or offer Skin Rash the opportunity to join you in the sterile lab for some research... who knows what's breeding in his festering sores afterall?
"If you have a problem with this, then you're a jerk who can't roleplay!" Do you really think people can't see what you're trying to do here?
-
B) even if he DOES, just because you're a world leader in microbiology and Skin Rash the CyberHobo mainly knows how to tell if the sour milk is still safe to drink, who cares WHO comes up with the clue based on microbial knowledge happens to positively affect the game? You're ostensibly both on the same team. If you can't get over Skin Rash the CyberHobo beating you on a knowledge-skill enhanced check (probably due to fluke luck, as Skin Rash doesn't sound like has has awesome mental stats and presumably you do) it speaks more to your ability to roleplay than there being a deficiency in the rules assumption. In my opinion. Why not roll with it and make it a point of roleplay. Get indignant in character. Or offer Skin Rash the opportunity to join you in the sterile lab for some research... who knows what's breeding in his festering sores afterall?
"If you have a problem with this, then you're a jerk who can't roleplay!" Do you really think people can't see what you're trying to do here?
Nothing more than what you are doing. Now we can get along and stop making things personal, or I can hand out warnings to all involved.
-
6e really does seem to have taken simplification so far as to convert srun from a PnP rpg into a boardgame-like experience focussed on pink mohawk flavor and mechanics where the details don't matter and the outcomes are not connected to physics or anything IRL.
The constant refrain i am hearing is "but your concerns are irrelevant because WE don't think that stuff is at all important / we did not use that feature in our own games".
That simply illustrates the disconnect between the design process and the playerbase (or at least the deeply invested, highly engaged fans that come to this and other internet boards).
yaay?
-
B) even if he DOES, just because you're a world leader in microbiology and Skin Rash the CyberHobo mainly knows how to tell if the sour milk is still safe to drink, who cares WHO comes up with the clue based on microbial knowledge happens to positively affect the game? You're ostensibly both on the same team. If you can't get over Skin Rash the CyberHobo beating you on a knowledge-skill enhanced check (probably due to fluke luck, as Skin Rash doesn't sound like has has awesome mental stats and presumably you do) it speaks more to your ability to roleplay than there being a deficiency in the rules assumption. In my opinion. Why not roll with it and make it a point of roleplay. Get indignant in character. Or offer Skin Rash the opportunity to join you in the sterile lab for some research... who knows what's breeding in his festering sores afterall?
"If you have a problem with this, then you're a jerk who can't roleplay!" Do you really think people can't see what you're trying to do here?
Considering how many of the complaints seem to boil down to “but my dice pool modifiers“, yeah it’s not a far guess that there is more concerned about roll-playing than role-playing.
-
I take it you're not familiar with the Stormwind Fallacy.
-
Knowledge Skills can be handled in this way using a very simple concept, it's called context. It's creating a background for your character that's realistic and provides context on just how deep their knowledge is on a particular subject. This context can change over the course of a PC's career based on his development, experience and active skill advancement.
-
6e really does seem to have taken simplification so far as to convert srun from a PnP rpg into a boardgame-like experience focussed on pink mohawk flavor and mechanics where the details don't matter and the outcomes are not connected to physics or anything IRL.
The constant refrain i am hearing is "but your concerns are irrelevant because WE don't think that stuff is at all important / we did not use that feature in our own games".
That simply illustrates the disconnect between the design process and the playerbase (or at least the deeply invested, highly engaged fans that come to this and other internet boards).
yaay?
How is it a disconnect in the design process if the WE you're talking about is the playerbase that simply doesn't agree with you. I'm not saying that there isn't a disconnect, I'm just trying to get to the core issue here. I agree that the better games that have come out recently are because they've invited players to playtest new rules for a year or more before releasing a final product. But in this case, since (AFAIK) none of the users disagreeing with you are working for Catalyst, I don't think you can attribute it to the design process.
On another note, let's say (in a perfect universe), Catalyst had done playtesting of Sixth World for the past year, and these are still the rules they released because that's what the playtesters liked. What then?
I'm trying state the problem I'm seeing with everyone coming on the boards and being critical of rules that we haven't seen in their entirety. Is the problem that the individual doesn't like the rules that the majority thinks are okay, or is there a majority of those that don't like the rules and most are just not speaking out.
Hell, rules are there to do one thing: Determine if your cool idea works. If they become overly complicated, then your idea stops being cool once you're going through the fifth table. On the other hand, if they are too simplified, then every idea is cool and is successful. The trick is finding a balance. In my opinion, Shadowrun has trouble finding that balance because they have to write rules for three different games (Matrix, Magic, and Meat) and make sure they are tied together and work together so no one gets left behind. If simplifying the rules gets closer to that objective, I'm willing to give it a shot.
-
On another note, let's say (in a perfect universe), Catalyst had done playtesting of Sixth World for the past year, and these are still the rules they released because that's what the playtesters liked. What then?
Then?
Then we can (hopefully) accept that the statistical majority of the player base do not agree with our take on the game.
Right now?
Unless I have missed it, we do not even have enough transparency to know the size of the playtest group. I am pretty sure we do not have any real evidence that there was a playtest group.
I'm not claiming any conspiracy theory here. I'm not accusing Catalyst of anything underhanded. I'm only pointing out that as a consumer we can't really judge the depth of the playtest.
Personally, if the playtest group(s) totaled less than a hundred I would call shenanigans on any results they come up with.
Then again, if their playtest procedure is anything like the errata procedure at the end of 5e... It could be done by millions and still not produce anything of note in the final product. :(
-
B) even if he DOES, just because you're a world leader in microbiology and Skin Rash the CyberHobo mainly knows how to tell if the sour milk is still safe to drink, who cares WHO comes up with the clue based on microbial knowledge happens to positively affect the game? You're ostensibly both on the same team. If you can't get over Skin Rash the CyberHobo beating you on a knowledge-skill enhanced check (probably due to fluke luck, as Skin Rash doesn't sound like has has awesome mental stats and presumably you do) it speaks more to your ability to roleplay than there being a deficiency in the rules assumption. In my opinion. Why not roll with it and make it a point of roleplay. Get indignant in character. Or offer Skin Rash the opportunity to join you in the sterile lab for some research... who knows what's breeding in his festering sores afterall?
"If you have a problem with this, then you're a jerk who can't roleplay!" Do you really think people can't see what you're trying to do here?
Considering how many of the complaints seem to boil down to “but my dice pool modifiers“, yeah it’s not a far guess that there is more concerned about roll-playing than role-playing.
Oddly I see it the exact opposite way. The modifiers aren’t a muh modifier roll play thing but a role play thing. As are the lack of ranks of some kind to knowledge skills.
The lack of these items pushes towards a more board games roll play than a role play. You can role play or roll play in pretty much any game but it’s design influences things in certain directions. To
Me this pushes toward roll play.
-
6e really does seem to have taken simplification so far as to convert srun from a PnP rpg into a boardgame-like experience focussed on pink mohawk flavor and mechanics where the details don't matter and the outcomes are not connected to physics or anything IRL.
The constant refrain i am hearing is "but your concerns are irrelevant because WE don't think that stuff is at all important / we did not use that feature in our own games".
That simply illustrates the disconnect between the design process and the playerbase (or at least the deeply invested, highly engaged fans that come to this and other internet boards).
yaay?
Can I also add that the most vocal dissidents appear to be the same dozen or so people across multiple platforms that is just a very vocal minority from what I can tell.
So is that really a disconnect with the player base, when the player base is thousands of people? I personally play tested 6E with 4 different groups for a total of 22 different people geographically located from all over the US and other countries as well. Plus when you add in the several hundred people that ran through demo's at Origins two weeks ago that all came away happy ... I just don't see a foundation for your logic.
I will also go on record to say that one more round of playtesting that was more open would have been a tremendous help, but I think at best that would only had minor changes and/or clarifications worked out, not an overhaul of the core mechanics.
-
I’m only seeing the same handful of people cheerleading as well so woo small numbers of people are talking about it altogether.
-
I’m only seeing the same handful of people cheerleading as well so woo small numbers of people are talking about it altogether.
true, not a lot of people talking about it in general yet ... like I said it seemed to go over well at Origins and I am curious to see how it goes at Gencon since we have actual live events scheduled there where we can get more accurate feedback
-
I'd also like to add that while some of the "pro-6e" folk are relatively established regulars, seems to me at least as many are people new to the forum who are only here BECAUSE of 6e. If nothing else, 6e has already grown our forum community here at least.
I think even among the "pro-6e" crowd of which I'm presumably a part, I think most if not all of us have our gripes with it as well.
-
I’m only seeing the same handful of people cheerleading as well so woo small numbers of people are talking about it altogether.
But I am seeing a lot of new forum members logging a lot of hours, but lurking as we all post this. Hence why I'd like criticism to stay constructive so we don't scare them off.
-
I’m only seeing the same handful of people cheerleading as well so woo small numbers of people are talking about it altogether.
true, not a lot of people talking about it in general yet ... like I said it seemed to go over well at Origins and I am curious to see how it goes at Gencon since we have actual live events scheduled there where we can get more accurate feedback
Until people take it home and play it in their own campaigns it’s hard to say one way or the other. One offs have a different threshold than a campaign.
-
I’m only seeing the same handful of people cheerleading as well so woo small numbers of people are talking about it altogether.
But I am seeing a lot of new forum members logging a lot of hours, but lurking as we all post this. Hence why I'd like criticism to stay constructive so we don't scare them off.
I think for the most part we have. I think every complaint I’ve had I’ve spun up house rules or potential optional rules that could fit into the system. Described not just that I had a issue but to be best of my capabilities why. And I think the small number of vocal detractors for the most part have done the same.
-
6e really does seem to have taken simplification so far as to convert srun from a PnP rpg into a boardgame-like experience focussed on pink mohawk flavor and mechanics where the details don't matter and the outcomes are not connected to physics or anything IRL.
The constant refrain i am hearing is "but your concerns are irrelevant because WE don't think that stuff is at all important / we did not use that feature in our own games".
That simply illustrates the disconnect between the design process and the playerbase (or at least the deeply invested, highly engaged fans that come to this and other internet boards).
yaay?
How is it a disconnect in the design process if the WE you're talking about is the playerbase that simply doesn't agree with you. I'm not saying that there isn't a disconnect, I'm just trying to get to the core issue here. I agree that the better games that have come out recently are because they've invited players to playtest new rules for a year or more before releasing a final product. But in this case, since (AFAIK) none of the users disagreeing with you are working for Catalyst, I don't think you can attribute it to the design process.
Ok Fastjack (god it's always so weird replying to you with the lore firmly embedded in my head) my responses below-->
I don't KNOW at all, hence my comment about the "the deeply invested playerbase on this forum.." which is clearly smaller than "all folks who play shadowrun".
So for other's opinions I only have the comments from people online to go on.
Unfortunately the reviews I have seen online are so crap as to be meaningless and the demo plays that have occurred were very limited in scope.
We have a track record of Catalyst's "process" to refer to and we know some minimal details about the playtests (thanks banshee!).
So given the lack of information I can only extrapolate based on past experience (not good) and the fact that this game veers heavily away from the preferences of all the people I play with and the majority of people I interact with online.
My comments and concerns are inline with the dataset of players I have available to me.
On another note, let's say (in a perfect universe), Catalyst had done playtesting of Sixth World for the past year, and these are still the rules they released because that's what the playtesters liked. What then?
Then in that case I would say "ok, you clearly don't want the type of player I am, or my table is, or the many people I interact with online to be part of the future of Shadowrun, so long and thanks for all the fish. At least you listened."
I'm trying state the problem I'm seeing with everyone coming on the boards and being critical of rules that we haven't seen in their entirety. Is the problem that the individual doesn't like the rules that the majority thinks are okay, or is there a majority of those that don't like the rules and most are just not speaking out.
Clearly there's no way to judge this given the game is not released.
I am restricted from commenting on the core rules due to NDA, so I am only commenting on the very mechanics that have been revealed by public demos.
With that tiny amount of information it's clear to everyone that armor and melee weapon damage are completely unrelated to reality, physics or anything approaching how they actually effect a real combat. That was clearly a design decision to favor simplicity over verisimilitude and to me that's an horrific design choice as there are other ways to achieve simplicity and retain a semblance of reality.
Hell, rules are there to do one thing: Determine if your cool idea works.
.
I respectfully disagree completely.
Rules are there to provide a framework to determine how your character's actions interact with the world and are adjudicated by the GM.
Doing "cool" stuff in only part of that.
Focussing on "cool stuff" to the detriment of a grounding in realistic outcomes results in a game that is divorced from reality, shallow and generally (imho) a waste of my time.
If I want that experience I pick up a boardgame. OR a modern CRPG.
For me a PnP RPG is there for detailed, in-depth, richly nuanced game play.
This ain't that.
If they become overly complicated, then your idea stops being cool once you're going through the fifth table.
Agreed!
Hence my many, many comments in this thread agreeing that some simplification was needed in Srun 5e.
On the other hand, if they are too simplified, then every idea is cool and is successful. The trick is finding a balance.
Agreed!
Imho 6e is just that, cool over everything else.
It's all cool with no relation to reality or realistic outcomes.
That's why the new edge mechanic is so horrific in my estimation.
It replaces the real, gritty feeling of a dystopian world with the Men in Black trope of all flash and no substance.
In my opinion, Shadowrun has trouble finding that balance because they have to write rules for three different games (Matrix, Magic, and Meat) and make sure they are tied together and work together so no one gets left behind.
I agree 100%.
All the more reason why the rules should be clearly written, well edited and have easily understandable and accessible mechanics that are similar across the meat, astral and matrix.
5e failed terribly in that regard by implementing matrix and driving sub-systems that were completely different from the mechanics for the other sub-systems, were confusing, terribly written and horribly edited.
They could have been fixed / replaced with tossing the entire thing in the garbage.
If simplifying the rules gets closer to that objective, I'm willing to give it a shot.
So am I!
I was hoping the surprise announcement of 6e was going to lead to something awesome.
Unfortunately just with stuff revealed publicly it's horrible.
It's a total abandonment of any connection to realistic outcomes in favor of "the rule of cool".
It is, in essence, exactly what you asked for in your post above "a game to let you do cool things"
And as you said above, the trick is finding the balance.
IMHO this ain't it, it's far from it and it gives me sad as I was hoping for so much more.
-
***WALL OF TEXT***
Thank you for going into detail on this, that's what I was hoping for. It basically comes down to we all want the same thing from the game: to make it more enjoyable for us to play it. We may disagree on processes and styles of play, but can agree on that.
-
***WALL OF TEXT***
Thank you for going into detail on this, that's what I was hoping for. It basically comes down to we all want the same thing from the game: to make it more enjoyable for us to play it. We may disagree on processes and styles of play, but can agree on that.
hear hear!
-
Full agreement with adzling
Both the rules (or most of them) presented so far and the lore do not appeal to me at all and, in my eyes, show that Catalyst is going for a over the top "rule of cool" edition which frankly is not Shadowrun for me.
I will look at the final product (or rather read what those who played it say after a few months), but so far I rather hope that 6E won't be the end of SR when it performs like I expect it to and that 7E will be better.
-
I take it you're not familiar with the Stormwind Fallacy.
Oh I am, but it's not an absolute. There is a difference between taking skills, spells, abilities, and gear that boost what you want to do, and taking skills, spells, abilities, and gear that boost what you want to do despite it making no sense for the character. The first is just character building, the second is roll building.
Being able to work with the GM to establish a character and what they know and do is critical for good role playing, and doesn't always need full mechanics behind it, especially when the mechanics are already kinda vague to begin with, something knowledge skills have always been despite having a number assigned to them. You could have two characters with the same knowledge skill, but they role-play them as knowing different aspects of said skill. In 3rd and 2nd (and I think 1st), knowledge skills could work as a complementary roll. This roll would let you roll the skill (was just skill back then, no attribute) and add half the successes to whatever other roll you were about to make. It was also suggested that a player could simply be given more information then someone who didn't have that skill.
The description sounds like it's going back to that, where the knowledge augments other skills rather then being rolled for it's own sake, which could be handled with a Memory Test for many of them if a solitary roll is required.
-
There's also no way to differentiate between a technically skilled artist, an emotionally authentic artist, and a highly original artist. These are very different, but the distinction doesn't really matter to Shadowrun. I can easily see that a binary distinction between people who do know about the subject, and those who don't, could be enough for this game. If it makes it easier for players to justify picking up new knowledges to reflect their characters' life experience, then it could be a good thing.
Knowledge skills aren't meaningless throw aways--knowledge is important in so many ways. Having knowledge, or finding knowledge. Why search for a expert on some unique bit of lore or information needed for a run, go to the trouble of finding that expert, when you can just find anyone with the skill, who will know just as much, as the system now has no way to account for actual depth of knowledge in anything that is not a main combat skill. the full some of human knowledge not contained on the basic skill list--meh, that;s just a flat skill.
with this approach--experts don't matter. Mathematics--doesn't matter how much you study. Nuclear physics? Meh, easy to learn. Culture, history, design theory--everyone's the same once you buy the the flat skill (and you have a similar mental stat).
Binary skill ratings are not satisfactory or acceptable as a game mechanic, no more than makign all of the active, mainstream combat skills in the game binary. --It's just a lazy cop out.
-
I wouldn't automatically draw parallels between a mechanic of academic "ranks" and what people actually know in terms of knowledge. The way academic knowledge works in the real world has nothing to do with your "level of training" and everything to do with you knowing the specific piece of knowledge (or a LOT of specific pieces of knowledge + some fairly basic theory).
I'd bet a lot that a nurse that watched some videos put together by researchers at various labs doing research on ebola and read papers on it will know more about the details of ebola than most doctors. Even a layman with little to no medical knowledge could likely stump most doctors on ebola mechanics after investing time into reading about it. Ebola isn't common enough for doctors to have clinical experience with it and so are unlikely to have been prompted to brush up on it. Doctors are doctors because they spent years studying many different things that are all related. If you want to represent a PhD level of knowledge, then it seems like you would list out knowledge skills for all the topics they covered in getting their doctorate. They will have knowledge of anatomy, they will have knowledge of virology, they will have knowledge of organic chemistry, knowledge of pharmacology, etc (etc...etc...etc...etc...etc... in the case of doctors). If you want to use the knowledge system to reflect a doctorate level of education, list 30+ knowledge topics that are all clustered around the subject they have their doctorate in, and that list won't exactly match the list that someone else with a doctorate in the same field will have (which is why people with degrees consult with people that have the same degree as them). If you want to spend more points to have a better specialized knowledge than someone who didn't, then have more points spent on tightly clustered topics than someone who didn't.
For hands on stuff like clinical skills? Yeah, ranks make sense because it takes hands on experience to develop practical skills and some practical skills are better than others. Those knowledge skills would really help though, as knowing the specific theory behind a specific task would give you an edge when performing a task you know the steps to but something doesn't quite fit the expected sequence, and their wide range of knowledge skills mean they will almost always have that edge.
Frankly, I don't see an obvious inherent issue based on what has been presented so far.
-
...
6e will.
...
Actually, it won't. It's not that the difference between binging some documentary trideos and earning a PhD is gone, it's just that the difference is now moot. Differentiating how MUCH knowledge you have on a topic literally doesn't matter in the mechanic of how knowledge skills work in 6e.
That's a sorry pathetic excuse of an RPG. Thats goign from knowledge is power to knowledge is meaningless.
Someone who only watched documentaries just might have watched the perfect episode and does know it. And the Professor who teaches the subject to doctorate students might have never bothered going into those particular weeds and might not know it.
and the 6e system throws the burden fully on the GM to randomly figure out who knows what, and how much, with no useful way to measure the relative likelihood of a PC or NPC to know a fact. That is lazy. That's abandoning the purpose of having RPG mechanics--so the GM doesn't have to constantly wing it and has a useful system to gauge a PC's or NPC's capabilities in an given area.
I'm stunned anyone can think is remotely acceptable.
First Aid: Training, level of ability, easily comparable. Who do you want working on your wounds? The guy with a lot more skill.
Nuclear physics? thats a toss up. Everyone in the world who has that knowledge is about the same. Doesn't matter who you talk to.
No need to go search for n expert in a unique knowledge area, a common hook of games. Just find the easiest closest one. They are all the same. There's no way to know who knows more. As long as the player has the knowledge skill, there is less need to go find a more knowledgeable expert--because according to the rules, there is no way for them to be more knowledgeable.
-
Knowledge skills aren't meaningless throw aways--knowledge is important in so many ways.
So is art. Rocker was one of the archetypes in SR1; Scholar was not. So, arguably, art is more important to Shadowrun than knowledge.
Having knowledge, or finding knowledge. Why search for a expert on some unique bit of lore or information needed for a run, go to the trouble of finding that expert, when you can just find anyone with the skill, who will know just as much, as the system now has no way to account for actual depth of knowledge in anything that is not a main combat skill. the full some of human knowledge not contained on the basic skill list--meh, that;s just a flat skill.
In SR5, what score in a knowledge skill means that you know all about the megacorps' (all the megacorps') latest research in that field? Suppose I have Cyberware 12 — does that mean I know the schematics for Ares's latest cyberlimb design?
I'm guessing not, so the switch to binary skills does not fundamentally change anything. You sometimes needed to look for specific people under the old rules, and you will sometimes need to do it under the new ones. What it does do is make it harder to run a variant campaign in which knowledge skills are central to in-play activities. But that's fine; the core rules should not try to support all possible variant campaigns. That way lie 1000 page rulebooks. Combat skills need to be granular, because they are central to the core Shadowrun campaign type. Knowledge skills are not, and never have been. If they were, there would have been a list, not "make up your own".
Maybe Catalyst should do a supplement on eggheads, with full rules for scholarship and knowledge. And one on revolutionary artists, with full rules for art. I think those could be very interesting supplements, but I don't think they should be in the core rules. In the context of the core rules, I think binary knowledge skills is a reasonable compromise, with potential strong benefits.
-
They already have the mechanic in place for languages. It’s not that hard to house rule knowledge skills to that.
I think it’s freaking bizarre for language they understand there are varying levels of knowledge but every other knowledge skill nope. But whatevs it’s easy to fix as they have the template in the game already.
-
I’m only seeing the same handful of people cheerleading as well so woo small numbers of people are talking about it altogether.
That's at least partly because all the people who have seen the full rules are bound by NDAs. I like some of the changes I've seen mentioned and am cautious about some of the others, but I'll wait to see the full rules before making a final judgement.
I've actually designed a new edition of an established game with a fervent fan base (Ars Magica 5th Edition). It's really hard work, with a lot of straight-out incompatible demands from the fans. The initial reaction almost always skews negative, because people seize on things that look wrong to them. But, sometimes, it shakes out over the course of a few months to generally positive. (Ars Magica 5th went that way, as did D&D 5e.) So I'm going to wait and see.
-
...
I'm stunned anyone can think is remotely acceptable.
First Aid: Training, level of ability, easily comparable. Who do you want working on your wounds? The guy with a lot more skill.
Nuclear physics? thats a toss up. Everyone in the world who has that knowledge is about the same. Doesn't matter who you talk to.
...
I give up. I was going to respond but I'm done trying to change made-up minds.
-
I’m only seeing the same handful of people cheerleading as well so woo small numbers of people are talking about it altogether.
That's at least partly because all the people who have seen the full rules are bound by NDAs. I like some of the changes I've seen mentioned and am cautious about some of the others, but I'll wait to see the full rules before making a final judgement.
I've actually designed a new edition of an established game with a fervent fan base (Ars Magica 5th Edition). It's really hard work, with a lot of straight-out incompatible demands from the fans. The initial reaction almost always skews negative, because people seize on things that look wrong to them. But, sometimes, it shakes out over the course of a few months to generally positive. (Ars Magica 5th went that way, as did D&D 5e.) So I'm going to wait and see.
And it goes the other way too where people have a initial like of a game as it seems to solve problem x but the more they play it the more other flaws bring it down.
There are plenty of things I like from what I’ve heard. Did the lack of multiple passes. I would have leaned more into that and not had multiple majors, but had multiple minors being added into super moves so it’s just one action instead of a potential 2 but still overall optimistic about that.
I generally like edge. I think it may have some uses that break verisimilitude and I don’t think it should replace combat modifiers but instead be a add on to them but hey edge overall looks more usable this edition so far.
No force in spells love it. Need to see the details to see how it works entirely. You can up damage to drain but can you hold back like let’s say use physical barrier just as an umbrella for rain 5e force 1 cast. Wish spirits were force less as well. Like forcex2 resistance by spirits to being summoned. But im cautious about what a force 6 spirit means in a world where heavy pistols do 4 damage.
I see 0 positives in this knowledge skill system but at least house rules should be easy just by copying the language template.
-
I personally like not having skill ranks in Knowledge Skills... Anything that gives narrative options to players (ie. How much they should/would know) free's up a GM to focus on other things on the fly while GM'ing. I know I'm in the growing minority, but I like giving more freedom to players to sway the narrative control of the game. How that interacts with Skilljacks, that's what has me intrigued.... But I like NOT having a 6 in Biochemistry, rolling, and getting only 1 success and having to portray it as "Pfff, I think the poison was Arsenic... Maybe?" Where then, I'd hear people complain that you should be using Edge to balance out that bad dice role, but if one mechanic that didn't work as well as intended needs to rely on a second mechanic to act as a stop gap for the first, it just gets too clunky and bogs the flow of the game down. If you've got a 6 in a Knowledge Skill, you shouldn't be at the mercy of bad dice rolls when your an EXPERT in your field.
-
I personally like not having skill ranks in Knowledge Skills... Anything that gives narrative options to players (ie. How much they should/would know) free's up a GM to focus on other things on the fly while GM'ing. I know I'm in the growing minority, but I like giving more freedom to players to sway the narrative control of the game. How that interacts with Skilljacks, that's what has me intrigued.... But I like NOT having a 6 in Biochemistry, rolling, and getting only 1 success and having to portray it as "Pfff, I think the poison was Arsenic... Maybe?" Where then, I'd hear people complain that you should be using Edge to balance out that bad dice role, but if one mechanic that didn't work as well as intended needs to rely on a second mechanic to act as a stop gap for the first, it just gets too clunky and bogs the flow of the game down. If you've got a 6 in a Knowledge Skill, you shouldn't be at the mercy of bad dice rolls when your an EXPERT in your field.
And lets the GM and player work together to build the character they want beyond what just the number can impart. And if it turns out that more complexity is desired/needed, Shinobi pointed out there's already a system in place on the languages that can be used.
-
I'm of two minds about rank-less knowledge skills.
On one hand, ranks for knowledge skills don't add that much complexity, so I'm skeptical of how much benefit is really gained from this streamlining. In fact, arguably rank-less knowledge skills adds more complexity, because there are now different systems for active, language, and knowledge skills.
On the other hand, I don't think much is lost by going to binary, rank-less knowledge skills. Determining what kind of substantive knowledge having a particular knowledge skill does (or does not) encompass should be easy to establish through roleplaying. I've played plenty of games where there was no numerical stat for a given characteristic, so the players and the GM (usually me) established it through fiction. Asking players and GM to establish something as essential as, say, combat or magical skill through the fiction would be a drastic change. Asking them to establish background knowledge seems find to me.
I've played a lot of systems ranging from very numbers-driven to very narrative-driven, and I've had a lot of fun with both. I don't think one is "more" of an RPG than the other. I'm curious to see what kind of balance 6E strikes.
-
I'm of two minds about rank-less knowledge skills.
On one hand, ranks for knowledge skills don't add that much complexity, so I'm skeptical of how much benefit is really gained from this streamlining. In fact, arguably rank-less knowledge skills adds more complexity, because there are now different systems for active, language, and knowledge skills.
On the other hand, I don't think much is lost by going to binary, rank-less knowledge skills. Determining what kind of substantive knowledge having a particular knowledge skill does (or does not) encompass should be easy to establish through roleplaying. I've played plenty of games where there was no numerical stat for a given characteristic, so the players and the GM (usually me) established it through fiction. Asking players and GM to establish something as essential as, say, combat or magical skill through the fiction would be a drastic change. Asking them to establish background knowledge seems find to me.
I've played a lot of systems ranging from very numbers-driven to very narrative-driven, and I've had a lot of fun with both. I don't think one is "more" of an RPG than the other. I'm curious to see what kind of balance 6E strikes.
To me, rankles skills are find if they are handled right.
1. They should have only narrative or limited streetwork value, ie. they get you to the guy/girl that can help you, and not they answer the key question of the adventure.
2. They are not easily obtained during character creation or play., ie. players can't just pull them out of their *** or have 20 of them.
3. They should not be any form of skill that can be substituted for an active skill any anyway (Investigation, Perception, Negotiation, etc.).
4. They should not be involved in any type of interaction that can bring a group to blows or put the group in a in a tight spot (Language during a foreign negotiation).
-
After reading the description of knowledge skills and language skills, I think it would have made more sense if the loose tiers (Basic --> Specialist --> Expert --> Native) applied to knowledge skills as well. Maybe swap the "Native" level for something like "Savant" when it comes to knowledge?
If you have more significantly more knowledge in a particular field than someone else, then you should get an advantage over someone who doesn't. And it doesn't have to be brain surgery. It could be someone with an Expert-level knowledge of law could gain an advantage over a corrupt cop with only a Basic understanding. It could be your team's Face chatting it up at an antiquities auction to try and blend in, only to to be publicly humiliated by someone with a Savant-level knowledge of whatever it was they were talking about.
The way it's being talked about now, it seems like there are going to be more instances where players feel cheated because their knowledge skill doesn't cover things it should, and also instances players "knowledge-begging" to justify getting some extra dice.
-
For what it's worth, I've been asking my GM who does 5th Ed to award Knowledge-Only Bonus Karma. The idea being, we get Knowledge-Only Bonus Karma at chargen to avoid the situation of, "I could put points into either Musical Genres/History or Guns/Perception", so why not allow that afterwards?
The way 6th looks like it'll be going, there won't need to be a house rule for that. True, making knowledge skills binary means there's no way to differentiate how knowledgeable you are about a thing, but it also means that you won't have to worry about the GM not being legally allowed to tell you something handy because you, with your Masters of Art History, glitched your Knowledge test, ran out of Edge (or didn't want to spend it on a Knowledge test), and couldn't meet the threshold.
"You have Relevant Skill: here's Relevant Info" seems a bit simplistic, but it also means you'll always be able to get a bit of extra stuff because of something your character knows.
-
Do not like. I have built and many of my players have built characters who are experts on subjects but didn’t want to work under the confines of a Corp. and used running as a way to fund their research.
I don’t like the reasoning I’m Seeing either. The only thing that matters is how it effects the game? Nope, I’m roleplaying a character who may have attributes and skills of no relevance to the game. It’s about having the ability to make a complete character not a complete game device. It’s a rpg not a board game.
...totally in agreement.
As an example my Jack of all Trades and Demolitions Expert Leela is something of a "skill monkey".
Over time she has accumulated a fairly extensive list of knowledge skills. Some which relate to what she encountered during missions she had been on, some to her primary "profession" as a demolitions expert, some from her background as a former performer and member of a resistance cell, some that give her better insight, and some that just catch her interest.
As she has accumulated quite an array of active skills, I also put Karma into improving or adding new knowledge skills, particularly if she feels it might be a good idea to know about something she may encounter again on a future job.
To just say she "has" these skills without any structure or rating seems a bit arbitrary, and in away (at least to myself) feels a bit like cheating.
Personally, I miss the mechanic from 3E that allows knowledge skills which assist active skills (like say structural dynamics or architecture when assessing a building for setting up demolitions charges) that allows one to add 1 success to the test for every two successes on the related knowledge skill. That made knowledge skills a lot more useful.
-
Let's look at some Prime Runners to see how they'll change in 6E (grabbed stats from Street Legends):
The Smiling Bandit
Active Skills: Close Combat skill group 3, Computer (Edit) 6 (+2), Cybercombat 5, Data Search (Technical Journals) 6 (+2), Disguise 3, Dodge 3, Electronic Warfare (Encryption) 6 (+2), Firearms skill group 4, Hacking (Sniffer) 6 (+2), Hardware 5, Industrial Mechanic 4, Influence skill group 5, Perception 6, Software (Defensive Utilities) 6 (+2)
Knowledge Skills: Genetic Engineering 6, Universal Omnitech 4, Cybertechnology 4, Manatech 3, Biotech 5
Slamm-0!
Active Skills: Automatics 3, Clubs 3, Con 2, Cyber Combat 5 (+2), Dodge 4, Driving 1, Electronic Warfare 5 (+2), Electronics skill group 4 (+2), Etiquette (Matrix) 5 (+2), First Aid 1 (+1), Hacking 6 (+2), Intimidation 2, Leadership 2, Negotiation 5, Perception 5 (+1)
Knowledge Skills: Anarchist Groups 5, Area (Redmond Barrens) 6, Computer System Security Techniques 4, Famous Hackers/Deckers 3, Financial Systems 3, Pro-Meta Groups 4, Secret Matrix Hacker Chatrooms 6
Damien Knight
Active Skills: Armorer 5 ( 8), Athletics skill group 4, Biotech skill group 4 (7), Close Combat skill group 6, Cracking skill group 6 (9), Diving 3, Dodge 6, Electronics skill group 6 (9), Exotic Ranged Weapon (Laser Weapons) 6, Firearms skill group 6, Gunnery 3, Heavy Weapons 3, Influence skill group 6, Intimidation 5, Parachuting 3, Perception 6 (12), Pilot Aerospace 3, Pilot Aircraft 3, Pilot Anthroform 3, Pilot Ground Craft 4, Pilot Watercraft 3, Stealth skill group 4 (7), Throwing Weapons 3
Knowledge Skills: Ares Macrotechnology 6, Business 6, Chess (Endgame) 6 (+2), Computer Theory 5, Corporate Politics 6, Firearms Design 5, Firearms History 5, German 3, Economics 5, History 5, Japanese 5, Megacorp Law 5, Military 6, Security Companies (Knight Errant) 6 (+2), Security Design 5, Security Procedures 5, Spanish 5, UCAS Politics 6
How would they use their skills in 5th Edition vs. 6th Edition?
-
Since those prime runners seem to cap skills at 6 im guessing 4e stats. So they’d have the same knowledge skills but areas they were world class in vs professional isn’t differentiated. As an example with Knight him being the type of guy who could play chess with a great dragon isn’t represented any more than if rando smart guy just picked up chess last session.
-
Since those prime runners seem to cap skills at 6 im guessing 4e stats. So they’d have the same knowledge skills but areas they were world class in vs professional isn’t differentiated. As an example with Knight him being the type of guy who could play chess with a great dragon isn’t represented any more than if rando smart guy just picked up chess last session.
Sorry, I'm asking how the tests would go with the actual rules, not on what they might represent.
As for chess, it's not hard to learn, and I can see some "rando" with a high logic picking up the skill and beating Damien Knight. Just like regular people become grand masters in the real world. One of the reasons Damien usually wins at chess is due to a high natural logic and augmentations to increase it higher.
-
Let's look at some Prime Runners to see how they'll change in 6E (grabbed stats from Street Legends):
How would they use their skills in 5th Edition vs. 6th Edition?
Well, at the very least they’ll probably have access to more knowledge skills so Slamm-o can grab some ‘baseball’ and ‘snarky jokes’ knowledge skills ;D
-
Since those prime runners seem to cap skills at 6 im guessing 4e stats. So they’d have the same knowledge skills but areas they were world class in vs professional isn’t differentiated. As an example with Knight him being the type of guy who could play chess with a great dragon isn’t represented any more than if rando smart guy just picked up chess last session.
I mean, under the current rules who knows more about magic: Street Shaman with Logic 1 and Magic background 6, or a decker with Logic 6 and Magic Background of 1? Pure Mechanics, they both know the same by rolling dice pools of 7.
So instead you decide who knows more based on the skill rating, which is a role play decision based on the points, but even that ignores that the shaman would understand magic on a far deeper level then a decker since he lives in it daily, while the decker can only know secondhand information.
With what six is proposing is that the choice be fully roleplay, so even if the decker had an equal or higher rating, you can emphasize the different ways they know the subject, the decker being the facts and formula of spells and the shaman the feel and flow of spirits and mana.
It also ( depending upon how the skills are distributed a character creation) lets lower Int/Log characters like that shaman have access to other knowledge skills relevant to their background but little mechanical use, such as soup kitchen locations, combat biking leagues, or punk metal lyrics.
-
With the new system the Magic background skill would add two anytime it applies to the situation.
"Geek the mage guard!"
If you have Magic, then you get a +2 to spot which of the CorpSec officers looks like a mage.
-
...
I'm stunned anyone can think is remotely acceptable.
First Aid: Training, level of ability, easily comparable. Who do you want working on your wounds? The guy with a lot more skill.
Nuclear physics? thats a toss up. Everyone in the world who has that knowledge is about the same. Doesn't matter who you talk to.
...
I give up. I was going to respond but I'm done trying to change made-up minds.
I feel the same way about dealing with apologists for lazy writing.
-
I worked on the notion that Runners developed skills, especially in knowledge, in an eclectic and/or tacit experience kind of way. Different approaches of development to ultimately a same level of understanding.
Your runner with Gang knowledge might have gained that in several ways. Maybe they lived street. Maybe they lived as a cop. Maybe they did a comparative analysis of the sociological conditions associated with disenfranchisement as it relates to locked upward mobility and lateral options. And then what would be different is that 1st guy has Etiquette - street gangs, 2nd has cops 3 has academics....or something like that.
Knowledge (and skills in general) in 5e and before rarely, if at all, dealt with the reality that skills and knowledge fade and become obsolete in cases if you don't keep up with them. Oh you have a knowledge 5 rating from stuff relevant 25 years ago? Yeah that's only a 2 now if you don't pay these upkeep costs. I mean literally for my profession (social work) for license stuff they can decertify you if you don't keep up with your CEUs (continuing education units) :P
And talking about Social Work as a knowledge, there probably aren't many of us with too high a base Social Work knowledge. Why? Because at higher levels you specialize. Functionally, knowledge wise, I'd say a BSW "social work" knowledge isn't that different from an MSW "social work" knowledge, but the MSW guy has more depth in multiple knowledge areas (theoretically, I've met MSW that I'm amazed even made it out of school....) I can tell you basic principle stuff re: Gerontology field as it relates to SW, or some of the substance abuse stuff, but my stuff was more child/adolescent mental health, early childhood, CWS, etc. The guys that concentrate on Macro tier SW have different knowledge sets than those that work Front Line field.
anyway
I think we can all agree the skill system in ANY rpg isn't 'realistic' and shouldn't be. The trade off in hyperspecificity to try and get things as accurate as possible....probably doesn't matter.
-
I feel the same way about dealing with apologists for lazy writing.
There is nothing lazy about the decision to go with binary knowledge skills. Given that valued skills already exist in the game, you actually have to do more writing to have binary knowledge skills than to have valued ones. If you want valued ones, you can just say "And there are knowledge skills, which work like active skills, based on Intuition or Logic. Make up some skill names for your characters." And, come to think of it, previous editions pretty much did. If you want binary knowledge skills, you have to explain how they work, which means more writing, and more effort.
You can certainly disagree with the design choice, but calling the writers "lazy" is obviously unjustified.
-
With the new system the Magic background skill would add two anytime it applies to the situation.
"Geek the mage guard!"
If you have Magic, then you get a +2 to spot which of the CorpSec officers looks like a mage.
...OK so let's take my Jack of all Trades character Leela (who has the quality), a mundane who's backstory is that she was a member of a resistance cell in an occupied nation and thus had to fill a number of different roles like armed combat, demolitions, infiltration, driving, and field medic. What "advantages" would she get, or would she get any?
-
With the new system the Magic background skill would add two anytime it applies to the situation.
"Geek the mage guard!"
If you have Magic, then you get a +2 to spot which of the CorpSec officers looks like a mage.
...OK so let's take my Jack of all Trades character Leela (who has the quality), a mundane who's backstory is that she was a member of a resistance cell in an occupied nation and thus had to fill a number of different roles like armed combat, demolitions, infiltration, driving, and field medic. What "advantages" would she get, or would she get any?
Advantage to what? I'm assuming you mean with your knowledge skills and not the active skills for such tasks.
In the above example a bonus to being able to spot that silver and gold spiraling ear ring that you recognize as a standard pattern for a spell focus that was commonly used among the occupying force your resistance cell fought.
If you mean to Jack of all Trades, no idea as the quality doesn't have a public write up yet that I'm aware of.
If you mean bonuses from your knowledge skills to fit the character, that's for you and your GM to work out via cooperative world and character building that's not that far off from where it is now since even with numbers assigned most knowledge skills are so broad as to require some thought into what parts of the topic you know more about and what parts you don't.
-
...in Missions play there are a lot of "roleplay" and "Player-GM" decision situations that are not allowed (like certain qualities for example) to accommodate the more "standardised" structure required so that the same character can be run under different GMs, at Game Store meets, and at conventions.
In many cases role play is often held to a minimum because of the time constraint (usually 4 hours maximum).
-
Ok. I know this sounds crass, but mission play is not normal play. Missions has it’s own set of house rules and guidelines that are not part of the standard rules. It’s been said already that mission play will update a new document once the main rules for non-convention play are in the wild, and will deal with how the new knowledge skill rules will work at that point.
-
...not crass at all.
Indeed, as I mentioned, Missions uses its own set of "house rules" to support rotating GMs and gaming sites as well as dealing with a tight time constraint (4 hour sessions).
Unfortunately, where I live, this is the only way I can get my SR fix as home spun campaigns are far and few between (D&D 5th, Magic, and Pathfinder are the popular games here) and the few I have been in eventually died out after a month or so.
The last long running home campaign I was in (just over two years meeting about every two weeks) was one I GM'd under 3E several years ago.
-
One: I know how frustrating that can be. Two: I think it's admirable that you've had a campaign that's outlived whole editions.
As for Knowledge skills, I'm eager to know how much Karma it'll take to gain more. Will you be largely stuck with your starting ones, or will it be like other editions, wherein you're only stuck with your starting ones because you're stuck between putting Karma toward "Knowing More Things" (which may give you a helpful factoid somewhere down the road, or round out characterization) or "Shooting More Things" (which brings an obvious, immediate benefit)?
"Anyway, my LOG 1 pixie wearing nothing but undergarments will know exactly as much about the blizzard that's going on as-" actually, I'll just wait it out and see what the entire Core rules are like before making worst-case examples.
-
Ok. I know this sounds crass, but mission play is not normal play. Missions has it’s own set of house rules and guidelines that are not part of the standard rules. It’s been said already that mission play will update a new document once the main rules for non-convention play are in the wild, and will deal with how the new knowledge skill rules will work at that point.
Missions play should/does represents official play. It's where many players learn the system. Missions play has special rules b/c thing are going to work differently in non-contiguous groups. But those things are pretty clearly outlined. To me it serves an important purpose in the modern gaming market. It's also worth noting most of the problem rules they change are the same problem rules home game may well have to address. We will see how errata works in 6, but lets just go with my faith isn't high at the moment.
-
They're now at a level where their binary nature may seduce me into splurging on a few.
-
For most stuff which are knowledge skills having super varied levels doesn't make sense in a game.
Because like, only one player is likely to have a given niche knowledge and the GM is unlikely to put in a check that their knowledge wouldn't be good enough for if it's important.
It's kind of like how Lock Picking and getting doors open is a flowchart in 5e but the realistic answer that works with how the game's set up is that the GM isn't going to put an entry obstacle you can't deal with in the game.
-
I also like how the skill can have different use depending on the character and situation, making it different from just throwing a separate skill for info. That Knowledge Skill on Seattle Street Gangs can be used for a Perception check to spot their gang colors, a Memory Test to figure out what the local people are in the neighbourhood you're in to go negotiate with them, a Con (Impersonation) check to act like one, an Influence check appealing to them specifically (hello bonus Edge!), and so on and so forth. It encourages both GMs and players to be creative.
-
I also like how the skill can have different use depending on the character and situation, making it different from just throwing a separate skill for info. That Knowledge Skill on Seattle Street Gangs can be used for a Perception check to spot their gang colors, a Memory Test to figure out what the local people are in the neighbourhood you're in to go negotiate with them, a Con (Impersonation) check to act like one, an Influence check appealing to them specifically (hello bonus Edge!), and so on and so forth. It encourages both GMs and players to be creative.
It also encourages PCs to define Knowledge skills as broadly as possible and ask for dice/edge/cookies more frequently.
Knowledge skills like, Small Unit Tactics, Matrix Security, Magic Theory, Arcana, and so on. All seem like reasonable knowledge skills, but when applied as broadly and as frequently as possible almost function as an additional Expertise.
Similar to the Edge system it's another discussion for the player/gm to be constantly having at first until the table settles into an understanding. It's going to have a wide degree of variation between tables, which is fine for home games, as a Missions GM gives me a "Meh" feeling.
-
In home games it seems kind of a pain in the ass to try and remember all the times it might give bonus dice. So I’ll be getting a lot of I have x can I get bonus dice questions. Before I’d just say if you have x skill roll it. And rarely if it’s a connection I didn’t think of a player might say I have x knowledge skill can I use it like y.
-
All seem like reasonable knowledge skills, but when applied as broadly and as frequently as possible almost function as an additional Expertise.
Not sure what you mean with an additional Expertise? Knowledge Skills don't give you a dicepool bonus on a roll you'd be making anyway, they enable a separate roll to figure out things related to the Knowledge skill.
Also, I disagree with you that it's ammo for bonus-hungry players. It's a useful storytelling tool for GMs in my opinion.
-
Knowledge skills are a Narrative tool used by players to gain some mechanical advantage on a test of some kind. There may or may not be some additional steps to get to that mechanical representation, but Knowledge skills are not purely for exposition.
Knowledge skills are not just so the GM has a reason to read some extra block text or just to be adjectives used to describe a character. They're to give a PC "something", edge, lower threshold, alternate resolution path, whatever.
-
Ah okay. You were talking about Expertises as if Knowledge skills give you a dice bonus, got me confused.
I don't think players will be able to get away with fishing for bonuses that much, but we'll see. I suspect most of it will be to figure out more. Yes, that may lead to alternate resolution paths, but that doesn't sound that bad. And honestly, if you are worried about people fishing for an advantage, nothing stopped them from doing so in SR5 with specific skills in chargen so it's not as if this binary system is worse.
-
It also encourages PCs to define Knowledge skills as broadly as possible and ask for dice/edge/cookies more frequently.
Why yes I would like some Cookies :D
How do you roll a these knowledge skills? Logic x2? Logic+Int?
-
I mean, any system that has GM fiat can lead to players arguing with the GM over it.
Plus half of the "but what if they beg for a cookie!" hand wringing could equally be contextualized as "but what if the players engage with the game world because they're paying attention to things!"
-
It also encourages PCs to define Knowledge skills as broadly as possible and ask for dice/edge/cookies more frequently.
Why yes I would like some Cookies :D
How do you roll a these knowledge skills? Logic x2? Logic+Int?
No roll. If you have an appropriate Knowledge Skill your character just knows "something".
-
Does this mean no cookie? ;-;
-
It also encourages PCs to define Knowledge skills as broadly as possible and ask for dice/edge/cookies more frequently.
Why yes I would like some Cookies :D
How do you roll a these knowledge skills? Logic x2? Logic+Int?
No roll. If you have an appropriate Knowledge Skill your character just knows "something".
Not exactly. I think Rudw's file has an example.
-
Wouldn't you make a simple memory test to recall things about knowledge skill in question? Probably just apply varying thresholds based on how obscure the knowledge would be.
-
I mean, any system that has GM fiat can lead to players arguing with the GM over it.
Plus half of the "but what if they beg for a cookie!" hand wringing could equally be contextualized as "but what if the players engage with the game world because they're paying attention to things!"
Could encourage them to bring them up more often rather then sitting dusty and forgotten on a character sheet. I can never remember what knowledge skills my players have taken, especially interest based ones.
-
Wouldn't you make a simple memory test to recall things about knowledge skill in question? Probably just apply varying thresholds based on how obscure the knowledge would be.
It's fairly free form in application, but I can very much see this. And in the case of a hypothetical microbiology knowledge test, I might even potentially allow a lower threshold for the same answer when rolled by a "world class microbiologist-turned-shadowrunner" than by Murder Hobo, the Walking Skin Rash.
-
the fun thing about 'irl' is that you can learn things...well...wrong. I'm sure we've all met people with degrees that are just...wrong in their understanding of it. Or dated, so while 'true in the 80s your school of thought is now considered outdated and barbaric in the near 2020s' kind of thing. I imagine the game abstracts it, handwaving that a 'point in this skill means 'as of most current period'
mechanically, i think part of the issue has always been, "i have to pay karma to have this, is it worth the cost?'. We talk about 'it gives your character flavor!' but it leads to "well either I try to min/max this, or I create a knowledge/etc that is pure fluff and never useful unless the GM twists the session to make it useful'.
-
This is a little long, but I thought I would weigh in on this in case any of my thoughts help others see a positive to this approach to knowledge skills, because it actually checks a box for me with what I want from a new edition.
There was a question of how much a character knows in an unranked skill system. I find that an easy answer, personally. Here it is. This is a game world where the whole of the Matrix is accessible via your commlink. You have super google, quite literally at your fingertips. A decker (or anyone) could conceivably even have their commlink's audio and contact's video sensors grabbing keywords and searching relevant terms and images live as they occur from context clues in the environment. Everyone can be at amateur "shadowgoogle" levels, and I assume that trivia level knowledge about the game world is omnipresent. So , as a contrast to that, the investment of chargen resources into a flat skill means the flat skill already automatically exceeds that default level. So they are not amateurs or dabblers. They know their stuff.
Could they have earned a PhD level degree in this at some point? Sure! Can they harness that degree of knowledge at this stage of their character's life? Spirits NO! Why? They are shadowrunners. Their existence is defined by living illegally in a world that they have to fight to survive in moment-to-moment. They have old enemies, treacherous Johnsons, random paracritters and gangs, social upheavals, Lone Star raids, and all manner of other things to deal with, and that was just Tuesday. That's not an environment where you can stay in tune with the latest discoveries and greatest theories, tech concepts, etc. Not enough to stay at those levels constantly anyway and keep them top of mind at all times. If SOTA is moving as fast as SR presents, what you knew last year is now old news, plus the soykrill is getting low and your last trip to Stuffer Shack ended in a Food Fight. You have Serious Trust Issues eating up your cognitive bandwidth everywhere you look. You won't lose the fundamentals, but nor will you always be up to speed or sharp enough to grab every salient detail you otherwise could if you had a less hostile lifestyle. So, you are not a functional master of any subject either (by comparison to an Academic glued to the trideo and Matrix all day). So you fall somewhere between "better than Shadowgoogle" and "distracted/lapsed expert". That's not an unreasonable place to drop people in a system that handwaves specifics to the degree that 6e does. It's also why you can't always pass a skill check even with a +2 bonus. You just can't pull it out of your fanny in that specific moment, even with your PhD. However, you didn't forget the fundamentals, nor are you an ignorant hack. The GM can ensure that feeling just by handwaving away a need to roll in some cases. In doing so, the GM can create a level of allowing the character to feel special and have the choice be important. You knew about an aspect of the mission that others did not. It just happened because you put the points into that area. Now those points mattered more than Elven Wines 5 or Seattle Gangs 2. I can still do that same thing with a system with ranked skills, sure. It doesn't mean a big change for me in how I leverage a knowledge skill in a player's favor. I want them to know things. I want their investment of points/picks to matter.
Now, all that said, maybe a static bonus may still not have the feel you want. To me, here's where the context of the skill is more relevant. I would find out from the player how and where the character acquired their knowledge skill. Depending on the backstory, I might be inclined as a GM to give even more of a bonus. Here's an example. Player is meeting with an NPC that loves computer theory. The player character also has that skill, and needs to convince the NPC to agree to be extracted. They engage the NPC in banter about said subject. The player has already told me the context they learned this skill in happens to be at a university, and that the character earned a degree in it before having to flee to the shadows. In this case, the backstory to the NPC happens to be similar. The player's character can not only talk knowledgeably about the subject, there are personal connections for both characters. In this case, I might offer the player a bonus to their social skill to convince the NPC. I might lower the threshold required or maybe just give the character a +3 bonus instead, whatever feels right for the scenario. By contrast, a character who instead learned the knowledge on the street has a different context, and tends to know a bunch of jankity shortcuts, and while on the bleeding edge, is a little less likely to appeal to the high-mindedness of an academically grounded researcher like my NPC. For an archetype, think Kaylee Frye from Firefly. The context doesn't align, so I wouldn't give exactly the same bonus. They can still dazzle with acumen, but the flavor may offset it slightly.
So, I view having an unranked skill base be an asset to improvise around.
Next area of concern I saw expressed here was how to test with it. Rules unseen, I would also default to the context here too. If the character is trying to recall it from their studies, roll for Memory, add the +2. If that roll fails, they can't recall, BUT they would certainly know where and how to search on the matrix, so make that test instead, still with that +2 bonus. If that crapped out, its time to ask a like-minded contact in that field. Now its a bonus to the social skill test or maybe the contact uses their skill check instead for that subject. As mentioned previously, using Perception to spot details that the character would pick out, also a good option, but basically any excuse to bring it into play is a reward to the player's choice.
I would also try to make this feel distinct from general 'shadowrunner' knowledge, which I credit all characters with having. The player won't usually know the world very well, so I provide it by starting my answers to questions (or providing guidance) with "As an experienced shadowrunner, you would know (x)". I would also apply that same logic when providing a reveal with a knowledge skill, as the rules apparently will also suggest. I credit the character with baseline helpful ideas as starting points, so the player has something to run with. When I look back at times players made horrendously bad choices, many times it was my failure to educate them on consequences. Other times, they just really wanted to shoot the Space Needle with a rocket launcher. That's probably also on me for letting them get that bored, though. Or we were all just 19 and squirrely.
I digress.
On the flip side, where I would draw the line is at insider knowledge. So, just because you have the Ares Macrotechnology skill in no way means that you will know the guard rotation at the facility you are about to raid. After looking at the context the player has for the skill, I would provide the default reveals I am comfortable with providing that don't give away the surprises, but yet also tease the player into thinking ahead. They wouldn't know any old passcodes, but they would also be aware enough not to try one anyway. To get insider knowledge, they have to do legwork and/or hit the shadownets to see what they can dig up. That's always a side quest level event.
So to me, a flexible skill, further defined by character concepts and background would drive the resolution, help set the tone and reward the backstory. How I use the skill with player A also gives the clue to the other players that they should add some depth we can play off of. Now they are all thinking how it is that they came to know about Elven Culture and why the character likes their wine so much. When it comes around to be useful, they get a very personal reward from it (if I did my job right). Seeing how I'm using it, that side quest for insider knowledge can now serve to cause other players look at their sheet and see how they can help. Maybe the social intel they need is with that NPC who loves Elven Wines. (As the GM I can also just make that true, if I want to further provide rewards, and that sounds like something I would do if it didn't feel too ham-handed in the moment).
One thing I definitely hope for though, is better guidance to players in this edition for where to set the breadth of knowledge. That was part of my turn off to the way 4 and 5 did it. I suppose, since the default knowledge level is "somewhere in the middle", that's where the skill breadth should land too. I shouldn't allow "arcana", but "hermetic arcana" is fine. Conversely, "magical foci" is probably too narrow. Somewhere in the middle is fine, and ill-defined is good, not bad. There's your TL;DR takeaway. I hope these thoughts were helpful to you as players and GMs.
-
...OK so take my character Leela who's background was a child prodigy musician (early in life) and later a member of a resistance cell in an occupied country.
In the latter, her specialty was demolitions, so related knowledge would likely include structural engineering, chemistry, mathematics, architecture, physics, and possibly civil engineering (bridges roads etc). As she also worked as part of an underground guerrilla force, knowledge of the local underground, small unit tactics, combat tactics, military procedure (as most cells tend to follow a chain of command structure), security procedures (assessing guard and patrol routines) and safehouses would make sense. Following her extraction from the war and living in Chicago a couple years additional knowledge would include Local Chicago gangs, CZ area (as that is likely where she would end up spending most of her time), local runner hangouts, and possibly awakened threats (the CZ is full of those). Rounding her out with some interests, she would have classical music, trid heroes (Neil The Ork Barbarian), fireworks (her father was one of Europe's premier pyrotechnicians), and "footy" (her older brother was an up and coming footballer in the Zagreb youth league). Finally, For languages she'd have Croatian (her native language) Russian (the language of the occupation force), English (which pretty much is spoken world wide, particularly in Europe), Latin (being Catholic), and possibly Italian (extension of Latin and useful in music).
Now that is more than she started with under 5E even given her Logic of 5 (7 augmented) and intuition of 5.
The 5E version of the character also has the Jack of all Trades quality, so during her career, she essentially soaked up skills like a sponge. She would often add new or increase knowledge skills, particularly if she discovered something new that caught her interest and felt could be helpful. For example after being on a mission to the Shattergraves and seeing bug spirits for the first time she took time to learn as much as she could about them (which came in very handy in Season 8 ), She also picked up a basic knowledge of spirits in general having encountered different type over time (which also came in handy).
In 5E this was easy to manage as she just spent downtime and Karma to pick up and/or improve a knowledge skill. However with the more "arbitrary" way knowledge skills are handled in 6E not sure how this will work. I find it odd just saying that between missions she has this new skill or picked up a new language.
-
In 5E this was easy to manage as she just spent downtime and Karma to pick up and/or improve a knowledge skill. However with the more "arbitrary" way knowledge skills are handled in 6E not sure how this will work. I find it odd just saying that between missions she has this new skill or picked up a new language.
You do know that saying you spent your downtime in 5E to spend karma to pick up a new skill is the same as saying the same thing in 6E?
-
In 5E this was easy to manage as she just spent downtime and Karma to pick up and/or improve a knowledge skill. However with the more "arbitrary" way knowledge skills are handled in 6E not sure how this will work. I find it odd just saying that between missions she has this new skill or picked up a new language.
You do know that saying you spent your downtime in 5E to spend karma to pick up a new skill is the same as saying the same thing in 6E?
I think it was dumb in 5e as well but 6e made it worse by increasing the recommended times even further. 6e most campaigns will be done by the time you improve a stat once. Not because it takes too long to earn karma but because it take another dozen runs to or finally see it.
-
Or... you're runners aren't working one job after another. There may be weeks or months of downtime between runs, which pretty much means that's all training.
I mean, I get that runners are a great service to the corps, but are your runners the only ones the corps call? Are they the best in the business? Are they so busy that they have to tell fixers and Mr. Johnson's that they can't take that mission because they have four others already lined up for the next three weeks?
C'mon guys, you're complaining about the rules that are supposed to work when your runners aren't running.
-
Or... you're runners aren't working one job after another. There may be weeks or months of downtime between runs, which pretty much means that's all training.
I mean, I get that runners are a great service to the corps, but are your runners the only ones the corps call? Are they the best in the business? Are they so busy that they have to tell fixers and Mr. Johnson's that they can't take that mission because they have four others already lined up for the next three weeks?
C'mon guys, you're complaining about the rules that are supposed to work when your runners aren't running.
Because the rules don’t actually work. I get paid 10,000 nuyen and I won’t work again until I’m broke? The guidelines are terrible. Unless your campaign isn’t a campaign but just a couple one shots the training rules just don’t work. They add nothing of value to the game, not realism, not ease of play, literally nothing is gained by these training rules.
-
In 6WE there are no established training times. The rule is training takes whatever period of time the GM wants it to take. The charts given in the CRB are literally only a suggestion. I'll grant that I also think they're a terrible suggestion, but the fact remains they're only a suggestion. Training time can instead be measured in days or even hours, if the GM sees fit.
-
'We are just presenting some options here to help as general consensus ... gm has final say in their campaign'
-
In 5E this was easy to manage as she just spent downtime and Karma to pick up and/or improve a knowledge skill. However with the more "arbitrary" way knowledge skills are handled in 6E not sure how this will work. I find it odd just saying that between missions she has this new skill or picked up a new language.
You do know that saying you spent your downtime in 5E to spend karma to pick up a new skill is the same as saying the same thing in 6E?
...however, given that knowledge skills are now chosen arbitrarily, do you really need to spend Karma on them as during chargen you simply what your character knows?
-
In 6WE there are no established training times. The rule is training takes whatever period of time the GM wants it to take. The charts given in the CRB are literally only a suggestion. I'll grant that I also think they're a terrible suggestion, but the fact remains they're only a suggestion. Training time can instead be measured in days or even hours, if the GM sees fit.
...I'm sure Missions will set some sort of base time frame to keep things form getting out of hand since time is so "fluid" between sessions.
In 5E the base time was pretty well set down. 1 day x new rating up to rating 4, 1 week x rating for rating 5 - 8, and two weeks x new rating for nine or above. Skill groups took two weeks x new rating and specializations one month. pretty straightforward, no GM input or decision needed.