Quote from: Willie the Duck;998184Another:
Cyberpunk 2020 (again) had two classes that you would ever be: deckers (if you wanted that type of campaign, and there wasn't a whole rest of the party to throw up their hands when the netrunning started), and Solos. The combat advantages that Solos got were so insurmountable, and combat was enough of any non-net game, that you would never not play one unless the entire campaign concept was built around one of the other (such as playing a rockerboy in a campaign built around a touring band).

Man, I hate to say it, but you are seriously doing it wrong.

Without even pulling down my 2020 book to refresh my memory you've got the Nomad who can call up a double dozen chumps to do whatever, and I seem to recall a street-gang Role that had a similar ability, you've got the Corporate AND the Fixer who have more money that God, which opens up all sorts of options for not getting shot in the face. You've got the Cop who can straight up intimidate the fuck out of you with his badge...

Sure, IN COMBAT the Solo's Combat Sense is bad-ass virtually garaunteeing the Solo goes first in combat every time. That's it. Its initiative boosting (plus spotting ambushes, but really that's a sort of back channel initiative boost, now innit?)

And I hate to point this out, but a solo with a high enough Combat Sense 'autowin' initiative reliably is going to have a weakness in actual combat, somewhere, due to shorting his actual combat skills. Yes, yes... specializing in a few skills yadda yadda... but that just compounds that some where in combat that solo is going to be weak... where-ever he didn't specialize mainly.

So if Solos are that utterly dominant you obviously didn't read Uncle Mike's advice AND you've mistakenly played your CP2020 like a crappy version of D&D.   Or in other words, just because you have a hammer doesn't mean everything you see is, in fact, a nail.

Quote from: Voros;998581How long would an evil character be able or willing to keep up the charade and to what end? Lifetime criminals don't tend to bond and spend loads of time with cops.

The obvious real answer is to not create groups with idiotic dynamics that require you to either abandon RPing or lead to PvP.

Actually, I think Kevin Siembeida handled this quite well with his clear definitions of Evil, and demonstrated it in, say, the Mechanoids Book, where one of the more evil NPCs in the setting was flying around doing all sorts of heroic stuff... because as a human he didn't want the human hating bipeds killing off all of humanity... himself included.

D&D uses a somewhat foggier and honestly more supernatural definition of Evil, which is why so many Evil character (PC or NPC) appear to be out of central casting for pulp villians, and thats why you can't imagine them working with a paladin for any length of time... they just gotta DO wicked, man!  Can't rest until they've murdered a baby under the dark of the moon! Which makes the entire alignment chart wonky if you look at evil that way.

Which is one reason why the more recent incarnations of Detect Evil (3E did this I think, but I can't really check off hand), required a supernatural component to the alignment (being a priest of a dark god, demonic pacts, whatever) to really register... though everyone seems to have missed that.

I made enough short-cuts for the sake of brevity that I'd be hard pressed to argue that that wasn't a reasonable response to what I wrote. However, focus on this part: "and combat was enough of any non-net game," and maybe that's where we'll agree or not.

Absolutely a Corp in a suit can probably buy or sell a Solo's existence on a requisition form. They have to sleep sometimes and if the Solo can make a living being a street enforcer, so can the Solos the Corp hires to off them. But PCs, being PCs, controlled by players are probably going to seek out situations where they can use all those fancy combat rules (and pages and pages of gun rules, mostly-combat-centric cybernetics, all backed up by some very 'street samurai are cooler looking that guys in suits artwork). Yes the game is supposed to be about political machinations and who-you-know and all the great stuff that exists in cyberpunk literature, but the level of in-game support for that kind of gaming is very small compared to the amount of material outlining how to best kill each other (it's not unlike Vampire: the Masquerade, where it was supposedly designed to be a game about political intrigue, and the designers were surprised when people looked at the rules they had put in the book and decided it was about fanged superheroes fighting with trenchcoats and katanas).  

And there, once you get to combat (which, again, if the designers had wanted to keep as a small portion of the game, they could have taken steps to encourage), the very specific rules of the game (not least of which being the relative weakness of armor to the weapons and armor-piercing ammo even starting characters will be able to bring to bear, but also the wound-penalties/death-spiral effects) make getting to fire first a very strong, if not insurmountable benefit.

QuoteYes, yes... specializing in a few skills yadda yadda... but that just compounds that some where in combat that solo is going to be weak... where-ever he didn't specialize mainly.

There's always trade-offs. If there weren't there wouldn't be anywhere to spend your XP (or, to make another type of game, you could start the game with all combat skills maxed, and then use all the xp you get to give yourselves whatever other skills you wanted to flesh out the character). However, it is the relative combat value between a non-Solo putting their skills into 2-3 combat skills (and probably whatever their actual job is as well), and the Solo spreads theirs among 3-4 skills, one of which is the initiative/spot boosting skill, and the amazing gulf that is that I am discussing.

QuoteSo if Solos are that utterly dominant you obviously didn't read Uncle Mike's advice AND you've mistakenly played your CP2020 like a crappy version of D&D.

D&D is actually a pretty good analogy. I love D&D, and I like the ideal of what original, LBB w/o expansion D&D was supposed to be. Not least of which are things like after name level it is supposed to be a domain management and/or wargame. Yet D&D is a great example of the designer's intent running headlong into what the audience is going to do with a book that is 90-95% combat rules and very little about running that other part except (switching back to CP) an 'uncle ____'s advice' section telling you what you are supposed to focus on.

I will not disagree that a game where one follows Uncle Mike's advice and is about Corporates/Fixers with more money than God utilizing all sorts of options other than shooting people in the face would in fact be an awesome game. Where I do disagree is believing that any of the three versions of CP I have read, by the rules written in the books, is that game. That game is more the 'ideal Cyperpunk that might have been' in my mind.

Quote from: Spike;1000031Man, I hate to say it, but you are seriously doing it wrong.

Without even pulling down my 2020 book to refresh my memory you've got the Nomad who can call up a double dozen chumps to do whatever, and I seem to recall a street-gang Role that had a similar ability, you've got the Corporate AND the Fixer who have more money that God, which opens up all sorts of options for not getting shot in the face. You've got the Cop who can straight up intimidate the fuck out of you with his badge...

Sure, IN COMBAT the Solo's Combat Sense is bad-ass virtually garaunteeing the Solo goes first in combat every time. That's it. Its initiative boosting (plus spotting ambushes, but really that's a sort of back channel initiative boost, now innit?)

And I hate to point this out, but a solo with a high enough Combat Sense 'autowin' initiative reliably is going to have a weakness in actual combat, somewhere, due to shorting his actual combat skills. Yes, yes... specializing in a few skills yadda yadda... but that just compounds that some where in combat that solo is going to be weak... where-ever he didn't specialize mainly.

So if Solos are that utterly dominant you obviously didn't read Uncle Mike's advice AND you've mistakenly played your CP2020 like a crappy version of D&D.   Or in other words, just because you have a hammer doesn't mean everything you see is, in fact, a nail.

Spot on. Solos are not unstoppable by any means. Sure the "initiative" bonus is very nice (as is the Awareness boost) - but you can mitigate a *lot* of that with the other classes by playing smart, having good gear etc. Do they have an advantage? Sure a small one. But saying they don't fit in the game? Crazytalk

CP2020 is nothing like D&D in play or by conceit. If someone is running it that way - I question their understanding of the genre.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1000045I made enough short-cuts for the sake of brevity that I'd be hard pressed to argue that that wasn't a reasonable response to what I wrote. However, focus on this part: "and combat was enough of any non-net game," and maybe that's where we'll agree or not.

Absolutely a Corp in a suit can probably buy or sell a Solo's existence on a requisition form. They have to sleep sometimes and if the Solo can make a living being a street enforcer, so can the Solos the Corp hires to off them. But PCs, being PCs, controlled by players are probably going to seek out situations where they can use all those fancy combat rules (and pages and pages of gun rules, mostly-combat-centric cybernetics, all backed up by some very 'street samurai are cooler looking that guys in suits artwork). Yes the game is supposed to be about political machinations and who-you-know and all the great stuff that exists in cyberpunk literature, but the level of in-game support for that kind of gaming is very small compared to the amount of material outlining how to best kill each other (it's not unlike Vampire: the Masquerade, where it was supposedly designed to be a game about political intrigue, and the designers were surprised when people looked at the rules they had put in the book and decided it was about fanged superheroes fighting with trenchcoats and katanas).  

There is precisely *nothing* in the rules that prevents any character of any class to use the exact same rules in combat or otherwise. One of the huge conceits of CP2020 (and Shadowrun and Interface Zero 2.0 and for that matter, every cyberpunk game I've ever played) is that combat in this genre is super-lethal. CP2020 exemplifies this in order for PC's to really consider how they go about engaging in combat. Murderhoboing in CP2020 will end up with a bunch of dead hobos.

In game support for setting a standard for what gear is available it there in the books. The main book glosses it over, but the Cop Book (Serve and Protect) and the America guidebook (Home of the Brave) detail quite clearly what is available and the rules of society. If you leave the entirety of the gear catalog to being available base on the amount of credits your PC's have... well I don't know what to say. Going to your D&D analogy that's like saying there's a Red Wizards of Thay shop in every city and they're selling whatever is in the DMG for gold.

Enforcement and discretion of that gear you're citing - is up to the GM. If you stick to the conceits and enforce them draconian-style (barring mitigating circumstances) - you'll never have this as a problem. Cops don't like non-cop PC's cybered to the gills and running around with mil-spec implants and heavy weaponry. And yes - using your Vampire analogy - not enforcing the conceits of the game will likewise get your Trenchcoats and Katana - another phenomenon I've never seen at my table.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1000045And there, once you get to combat (which, again, if the designers had wanted to keep as a small portion of the game, they could have taken steps to encourage), the very specific rules of the game (not least of which being the relative weakness of armor to the weapons and armor-piercing ammo even starting characters will be able to bring to bear, but also the wound-penalties/death-spiral effects) make getting to fire first a very strong, if not insurmountable benefit.

I dunno... didn't you just spell out, literally, the obvious here? Combat is LETHAL. What better encouragement could there be to realize that your characters are going to be short-lived if you run a gun-bunny game. I've had players cyber themselves up to the HILT. Covered with steel, all limbs (plus two extras) 8-fucking eyes, reinforced muscle and hydraulic rams - cyberimplanted weapons, .01 Humanity left on them. Complete killing machines... get killed with a .45 in the mouth from another PC tired of his shit.  

There is no way to be unkillable. That's the point. Engaging in escalating conflict *makes* you the monster of your D&D world where everyone can have a +3 weapon and be rewarded for killing the killer.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1000045There's always trade-offs. If there weren't there wouldn't be anywhere to spend your XP (or, to make another type of game, you could start the game with all combat skills maxed, and then use all the xp you get to give yourselves whatever other skills you wanted to flesh out the character). However, it is the relative combat value between a non-Solo putting their skills into 2-3 combat skills (and probably whatever their actual job is as well), and the Solo spreads theirs among 3-4 skills, one of which is the initiative/spot boosting skill, and the amazing gulf that is that I am discussing.

Which again makes me ask: what kind of game are you running? As a non-solo you don't *need* 2-3 combat skills to kill someone well. You only need 1. Let's be clear here - Solos *are* designed for combat. So why would a non-solo *need* to have more than 1 good combat skill at the start? What kind of campaign demands that non-Solos be present in a game where multiple combat skills are required? Killing someone in CP2020 is *ridiculously* easy. That a Solo can kill you 4 different ways doesn't make the class a problem when anyone can kill you within reason with their single skill. And should someone blink an eye when a trained professional killer kills a non-professional killer? Probably not.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1000045D&D is actually a pretty good analogy. I love D&D, and I like the ideal of what original, LBB w/o expansion D&D was supposed to be. Not least of which are things like after name level it is supposed to be a domain management and/or wargame. Yet D&D is a great example of the designer's intent running headlong into what the audience is going to do with a book that is 90-95% combat rules and very little about running that other part except (switching back to CP) an 'uncle ____'s advice' section telling you what you are supposed to focus on.

I will not disagree that a game where one follows Uncle Mike's advice and is about Corporates/Fixers with more money than God utilizing all sorts of options other than shooting people in the face would in fact be an awesome game. Where I do disagree is believing that any of the three versions of CP I have read, by the rules written in the books, is that game. That game is more the 'ideal Cyperpunk that might have been' in my mind.

The rules of a game don't make the game. The way you use them with the conceits of your setting/genre are what matter. D&D does have that exact problem - and you're literally saying the same thing (correctly) for CP2020 - what prevents it from being the game you think it should be is the GM enforcing those conceits at the table and making those things engaging.

Quote from: tenbones;1000078The rules of a game don't make the game. The way you use them with the conceits of your setting/genre are what matter. D&D does have that exact problem - and you're literally saying the same thing (correctly) for CP2020 - what prevents it from being the game you think it should be is the GM enforcing those conceits at the table and making those things engaging.

Well chalk that up to different (thread) goals. Because I thought that one of the conceits of this thread was that we were talking about the rules of the game[. If your premise is strictly that making [D&D or CP], "the game you think it should be is the GM enforcing those conceits at the table and making those things engaging," then we are in agreement. That's what I do for my D&D games and what I have done for my CP games.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1000098Well chalk that up to different (thread) goals. Because I thought that one of the conceits of this thread was that we were talking about the rules of the game[. If your premise is strictly that making [D&D or CP], "the game you think it should be is the GM enforcing those conceits at the table and making those things engaging," then we are in agreement. That's what I do for my D&D games and what I have done for my CP games.

Okay so here's my original post

QuotePost D&D 2e - The Fighter

3e- most of the classes and PrC's outside of the core book.
4e - all of them.
5e - Warlock. Eldritch Knight, Sorcerer, Druid.

Knives out, boys. Let's do this.

Sure light on details. But all my choices were not just mechanical, but they were mechanical as expressed in the game as a conceit. For me D&D is its own brand of fantasy. It has evolved to include a lot of stuff that I consider for the core-mechanics and assumptions things that don't belong strictly as a "class" in the game. This doesn't mean those things don't have a place - they could be folded into another class, or be setting specific. etc.

As it pertains to the Solo, I liken it to my position about the Fighter. Fighters in Basic/1e/2e have a definite place in D&D. They represent the "fighting man" of various permutations. In 3e - with the advent of Prestige Classes, and endless splitting of hairs - the need for the strict fighter as a class, imo, was rendered moot. You could fulfill his primary roll in a number of different ways that did not overtly affect the game (which I never liked - it took me years to realize they neutered the Fighter because I'm a stubborn bastard). The fact is - the bloat of later editions of D&D mechanically eclipsed the primary reasons for Fighters to even exist. I'd argue 5e still has this issue - though it's not nearly as bad as 3e/4e and I could arguably let it ride... (but not enough to run a 5e game - but that's not the Fighter's fault).

The Solo on the other hand - never quite hits that place. The conceits of CP2020 are that Solos represent professional soldiers/assassins/killers etc. Other classes can potentially fight as well as one, but due to the nature of the system, they still stand out as having an advantage in combat (intiative plus the ability to notice things potentially that lets them avoid/initiate combat). But that conceit is appropriate for what they're supposed to represent. And it does this without denying other classes the ability to compete - but without negating a fundamental premise what sets a true Solo apart from a skilled .

Where it comes to the GM enforcing these conceits - is where the rubber hits the road, which we both agree on. There is *no* amount of enforcement of my examples short of me disallowing or downplaying other aspects of the game that justifies the existence of those classes other than my own stubbornness. If I run a 3e game and someone wants to play a Fighter - other classes will inhabit that same space with relatively equal ease unless I start insulating elements for them.

I don't have to do that for Solos - they're kept in check by gear and in-game social enforcement. It doesn't matter if a Solo is a killing machine. What matters is how they conduct themselves in the act of play, because in CP - anyone can be - and will be - killed if they prove to be "out of control" simply by the social aspects of the game. If one doesn't enforce those things - well either you're playing a very localized form the game (maybe you're in the Wastelands outside of civilization? Or it takes place where authority doesn't have a lot of control) or one's understanding of the genre is not in line with the assumptions of the game itself. Which is fine too, if that's your cuppa.

Hmm. I can't say I would dispute any of that. But then again, my main problem here with both you and Spike was figuring out where you think we're disagreeing about anything in particular (and it sure seems like you both think that, what with telling me I'm doing it wrong or don't understand the genre).

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1000453Hmm. I can't say I would dispute any of that. But then again, my main problem here with both you and Spike was figuring out where you think we're disagreeing about anything in particular (and it sure seems like you both think that, what with telling me I'm doing it wrong or don't understand the genre).

I think we agree on 99% of it. I'm just putting it in context where you said the Solo class doesn't belong in CP2020. That's all. No worries.


NOW FIGHT ME!!!! BLARGGH!!!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1770[/ATTACH]

Quote from: tenbones;1000468I think we agree on 99% of it. I'm just putting it in context where you said the Solo class doesn't belong in CP2020. That's all.

Doesn't belong to the level of a have a dislike of a specific confluence of specific rules. Same (and lesser than) the netrunner (which I think everyone agrees thematically belongs in CP). Clearly we are using the threads premise for different purposes.

QuoteNOW FIGHT ME!!!! BLARGGH!!!

Has it not been well established in the however many years I've been here that I don't bother with that?

The solo is only dominant in combat in white box one on one fights. Even then his advantages relies on one hit kills... Which fails at least ten percent of the time due to dicer mechanics. The more participants the less advantages he has due to the huge target he becomes afterhis first attack.

Compounding the problem is having every dangerous opponent and random guard be a solo, forcing players to compensate...


Your turn sirrah

Quote from: Spike;1000031So if Solos are that utterly dominant you obviously didn't read Uncle Mike's advice AND you've mistakenly played your CP2020 like a crappy version of D&D.   Or in other words, just because you have a hammer doesn't mean everything you see is, in fact, a nail.

Now listen up, you primitive screwheads...

Quote from: Dumarest;1000028Maybe in your games.

For me, the craziest things in the game always turn out to be the PCs and their schemes.

Fair enough. But I meant in terms of it being the most gonzo thing in the basic system itself. A total anachronism in an otherwise medieval-fantasy themed game.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1001120Fair enough. But I meant in terms of it being the most gonzo thing in the basic system itself. A total anachronism in an otherwise medieval-fantasy themed game.

Monks were actually common in my old campaign. This was likely due to the fact that three of us were also in the same Kung Fu class.