Shadowrun & roleplaying

[tauknight]

What do you all think in the shadowrun system promotes roleplaying as opposed to hack & slash?

[TheElf]

Let me compare Shadowrun to D&D here.

• In D&D, you get XP for challenges and defeated foes. In Shadowrun you get Karma mostly for goals reached, and how you reach them. Minimizing risks is good (even if you should stay brave when risk comes to you).
• In D&D the system suggests one thing: Combat against all foes should be surviveable for the party. In Shadowrun some encounters could be deadly.
• In D&D you don't get attacked for a slaughtered lizardmen tribe. In Shadowrun if you kill more people than you have to, you do more damage than you have to you are considerd a dangerous amateur, and you make too many enemies.
• In D&D you wouldn't like an adventure where you should learn locations of deadly traps and other security systems and should disable them and don't have to fight. In shadowrun it can work well, and everyone can be useful even in a such adventure.
• In D&D the game assumes you are an adventurer. In Shadowrun while beginers can be shadowrunners, there are other campaign concepts and the game works very well with that. How a campaign for firefighters would become Hack and Slash?

And there are other such differences.

[tauknight]

• In 3E dragonlance allowed goal based experience awards (monsters giving less XP than normal to compensate). Would be a nice houserule.
• DM's mistake. D&D's DMG defines what is an effective challenge, it allows you to increase the deadliness as the DM fits. Even minions, though not durable, can pack a punch given the opportunity; SR does however force more intelligent play - less durable characters, thus more brains needed.
• That is due to medievil mentality rather than a problem of D&D. In D&D however, killing citizens would bring attention of more powerful groups - ie DM's problem (a similar type of game can be done in Forgotten Realms Amn, for example)
• Modern technology allows such opportunities.

[TheElf]

Originally Posted by tauknight

• In 3E dragonlance allowed goal based experience awards (monsters giving less XP than normal to compensate). Would be a nice houserule.
• DM's mistake. D&D's DMG defines what is an effective challenge, it allows you to increase the deadliness as the DM fits. Even minions, though not durable, can pack a punch given the opportunity; SR does however force more intelligent play - less durable characters, thus more brains needed.
• That is due to medievil mentality rather than a problem of D&D. In D&D however, killing citizens would bring attention of more powerful groups - ie DM's problem (a similar type of game can be done in Forgotten Realms Amn, for example)
• Modern technology allows such opportunities.

• Houserule, fro a campaign specific one isn't much...
• The DM can make deadlier challenges, but if you use deadly challenges on regular basis, it isn't realy D&D anymore. You wouldn't only lose some rules about XP and challenge, but would lose a lot of tactical combat, the strenghts and weaknesses of some classes would change... it would be a massive change on long run.
• Maybe. But it isn't about medieval mentality, etc. then. The difference is in your foes. In Shadowrun your foes are often considered "People like you and me, but get wage from another corp". In D&D they are often considered monsters (outside of society) or villains who are a threat to all.
  • In D&D you doesn't fight against rivals. You fight against Evil (or good). Why? Because not only characters but societies have an alignment and it is recognized by many.
  • In D&D alignment can be used and abused to justify such actions.
• I seriously doubt it. Why? Easy: Since several traps that can be made using medieval tachnology would be deadly. The problem is with what kinds of traps are allowed and where.

[FullBorg]

Judging from the karma awards on p263 in my fifth printing copy of SR4 (purchased at Gen Con OZ 2008):

character survival - 1 : bit difficult to learn if you're so much splattered mook, nyet?
fulfilled most (> 2/3) objectives - 1 : seems to work directly against hakkenslash
adventure extra challenging - 1 : this one can go either way, leading towards piles of mook corpses, or not a scratch
particular bravery or smarts - 1/2 : standing and fighting for sake of it won't get you either of these points.
good roleplaying - 1/2: again, against hakkenslash
moved storyline forward - 1: you get picture?
right skills at place/time - 1: you get picture?
impressed group w/humour or drama - 1/2: how thick are you?

looks like 0.5 reasons in favour of hakkenslash, and 7.5 reasons against.

[tauknight]

" Houserule, fro a campaign specific one isn't much..."

It shows the validity of my argument; changing the reward system of D&D is fine, and it will continue to be D&D. Even computer rpg games using the D&D system have implemented this change.

Those who are familiar with either of these are willing to accept such house rules without much discussion needed, so I see little opposition to it.

It promotes interaction with the setting & its inhabitants. Although D&D has other problems which need to be addressed, it can be a step in the right direction.

[TheElf]

Originally Posted by tauknight

" Houserule, fro a campaign specific one isn't much..."

It shows the validity of my argument; changing the reward system of D&D is fine, and it will continue to be D&D. Even computer rpg games using the D&D system have implemented this change.

No, it promotes the problem with how you try to argue there. I said in a game system different rules interact with each other. In Dungeons and Dragons system the rules and guidelines for adventure design, encounter design, CRs, XP rewards, the link between XP and wealth are all linked together and they serve a purpose in maintaining game balance.

Why? Most people agrees that in recent times the designers of D&D put more emphasis on game balance than before. We can ask why game balance wasn't that important before? Because if we want to see how much fun one can have, we will find that story balance is more important.

And story balance can be measured in "minutes of limelight", since it would be depend on simple quesions: can your character shine? Can you build the character you want if others are able to do that? Can your characters unique story be visible in the game just as much as the stories of others?

The balancing factor in Shadowrun 3rd edition (and 2nd edition) is tied to story balance and not game balance, this is why Shadowrun Companion point buy character creation rules doesn't specify a hard cap for points but speak about a flexible cap.

And the focus of story balance can be maintained easily even if your game doesn't focus on combat or doesn't focus on specific type of encounters. This leads to the point where the adventure can be about surviving a horrific accident... Say your characters are on a wrong train.

In D&D your characters are balanced for game balance in combat a scenario about accidents, natural disasters, etc. could end up with game balance problems. After all, how can you link money rewards and xp rewards if the adventure is about surviving the time your ship is sinking? And if you have to give up wealth? As you see in this scenario the problem isn't only about changing xp rules...

[tauknight]

Game balance was important before in 3.5E, WoTC just made a cluttered system which made it really difficult.

I know the rules interact, it is still an easy change to implement.

[TheElf]

Often people think it is easy to implement some changes, yet after a few moments they see problems started by the changes, then they change another thing, then they see new problems...

[tauknight]

There will always be new problems, but change, in the right direction, helps. Without experimentation, I think it is too early to say that there is no possibility of improvement.