This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Cyberpunk RED  (Read 12230 times)

Marchand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • M
  • Posts: 304
Re: Cyberpunk RED
« Reply #45 on: November 17, 2020, 10:08:05 AM »
The problem with long skill lists is that they define what a character can't do, rather than what they can.

Either that, or you end up with characters with huge numbers of skills, so that chargen is a chore. Plus if the design goal is to have broadly competent characters, why not boil it down to a smaller list anyway.

How long is long is going to vary by taste of course.
"If the English surrender, it'll be a long war!"
- Scottish soldier on the beach at Dunkirk

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
Re: Cyberpunk RED
« Reply #46 on: November 17, 2020, 10:10:54 AM »
The problem with long skill lists isn't just accessibility, but that even from the PoV of what they try to embody they make NO sense. They're invariably endless variations of the same type of action treated as separate abilities, so that if you master one skill, but not another that's basically THE SAME FUCKING THING (but a different vehicle or type of melee weapon), you're inexplicability completely and utterly incompetent in that other skill despite both being essentially specialties of the same core function. Which is NOT how skills work in reality. People who know how to fight with swords do not suddenly forget how to fight because they pick up an axe.

This sort of system is overly punishing and inefficient, and does not reflect reality. This isn't even a dig against long skill lists (in the sense of defining specific functions), specifically, but about implementation. Specific functions ideally should still exist, but they should NOT be treated as separate unrelated skills, but as specialties of general skills dealing with core, universal functions, like melee combat, ranged combat, technology, academic knowledge or piloting. That way you have general competency in one core function, but may still define things you've specifically mastered within those areas of activity, rather than spread Every. Single. Point. you've got into a dozen variations of the same thing, that might not even come up during play, just to have mild competency in those areas.

I respectfully disagree for two reasons. 1) Swords and axes are used very differently; they have different striking motions, muscle groups, and tactics. Granted this is a quibble over one example, and I agree that in real life being skilled in combat in general affects different weapon skills. 2) That said, in a game your solution would get lost in the mushiness of rolling dice. Say my sword skill is 60% and my axe skill is 10%. Your argument seems to be that some sword skill overflows into axe, so axe should really be what 30%? Thing is, I'm mostly going to use sword anyway and the few times I use axe, the difference between 10% and 30% is not going to register as statistically significant. If I use axe to the extent that 30% vs 10% does become statistically significant, then axe should still artificially suck for sake of narrative. If multiple weapons skills are all close in level and training in one means training in another, then what's the point in specializing? Without forcing specialization, choices become gray and characters become samey. I might as well throw points into bladed weapons because it benefits sword and axe. Soon all characters are all pretty good at both. IMO, it's better to have the sword guy and the axe guy, even if a little unrealistic.
I liked the old Cortex (not Cortex+) method where skills start as broad groups up to a moderate level, but higher levels are in specific aspects of that broader group (and you have to take the basic levels of the broad group before the specializations open up).

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Cyberpunk RED
« Reply #47 on: November 17, 2020, 10:50:18 AM »
The problem with long skill lists isn't just accessibility, but that even from the PoV of what they try to embody they make NO sense. They're invariably endless variations of the same type of action treated as separate abilities, so that if you master one skill, but not another that's basically THE SAME FUCKING THING (but a different vehicle or type of melee weapon), you're inexplicability completely and utterly incompetent in that other skill despite both being essentially specialties of the same core function. Which is NOT how skills work in reality. People who know how to fight with swords do not suddenly forget how to fight because they pick up an axe.

This sort of system is overly punishing and inefficient, and does not reflect reality. This isn't even a dig against long skill lists (in the sense of defining specific functions), specifically, but about implementation. Specific functions ideally should still exist, but they should NOT be treated as separate unrelated skills, but as specialties of general skills dealing with core, universal functions, like melee combat, ranged combat, technology, academic knowledge or piloting. That way you have general competency in one core function, but may still define things you've specifically mastered within those areas of activity, rather than spread Every. Single. Point. you've got into a dozen variations of the same thing, that might not even come up during play, just to have mild competency in those areas.

I respectfully disagree for two reasons. 1) Swords and axes are used very differently; they have different striking motions, muscle groups, and tactics. Granted this is a quibble over one example, and I agree that in real life being skilled in combat in general affects different weapon skills. 2) That said, in a game your solution would get lost in the mushiness of rolling dice. Say my sword skill is 60% and my axe skill is 10%. Your argument seems to be that some sword skill overflows into axe, so axe should really be what 30%? Thing is, I'm mostly going to use sword anyway and the few times I use axe, the difference between 10% and 30% is not going to register as statistically significant. If I use axe to the extent that 30% vs 10% does become statistically significant, then axe should still artificially suck for sake of narrative. If multiple weapons skills are all close in level and training in one means training in another, then what's the point in specializing? Without forcing specialization, choices become gray and characters become samey. I might as well throw points into bladed weapons because it benefits sword and axe. Soon all characters are all pretty good at both. IMO, it's better to have the sword guy and the axe guy, even if a little unrealistic.

1) Striking motions for most melee weapons are almost identical and share practically the same muscle groups. I know cuz weapon training is my go-to physical exercise these days, and I train primarily with swords and staves, but have also messed around with knives, hammers, walking canes and sticks, and they all tend to translate (stick fighting in particular is identical with swords, and canes have much in common with sticks--and therefore swords--and staves). Even seemingly disparate weapons like swords vs poles involve similar maneuvers that work basically the same muscles. You just need to compensate for different weight distribution and dimensions, and occasionally for special features, like hooks (if you're fighting with a walking cane or using the axe head as a hooking implement). But such features don't require drastically different techniques than what you'd normally use when striking or tripping opponents, and once you become experienced with fighting techniques, it becomes almost second nature to figure out how to use those features (hooking with a cane is very similar to tripping with a stave, only easier, cuz the hook gives you an edge).

Edit: Even when you need specific training to properly handle a weapon, that training is more in terms of "becoming used to the weapon", than learning radically different techniques. And once you master a weapon you pretty much can fight at the same level as you would with any other weapon. In old D&D or 3e terms, is more like gaining "proficiency", rather than leaning an entirely new skill.

2) What I'm proposing is making general skills the ONLY "skills" in terms of level development and specializations basically a one time bonus (like maybe +2 or so, depending on the system) on top of your skill level. Depending on how granular you want it to be, specialties could gain multiple ranks for increased bonuses, but I wouldn't recommend making it more than two or three ranks tops (Expert, Master, Grandmaster?). Also, the idea that you would only use a sword is very meta. Sometimes all you have is a stick you found in the ground. Granted, in game play that relies on the GM paying attention to stuff like disarming, or potentially losing your weapon if you fall, etc.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2020, 10:54:38 AM by VisionStorm »

Charon's Little Helper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
Re: Cyberpunk RED
« Reply #48 on: November 17, 2020, 11:01:59 AM »
The problem with long skill lists isn't just accessibility, but that even from the PoV of what they try to embody they make NO sense. They're invariably endless variations of the same type of action treated as separate abilities, so that if you master one skill, but not another that's basically THE SAME FUCKING THING (but a different vehicle or type of melee weapon), you're inexplicability completely and utterly incompetent in that other skill despite both being essentially specialties of the same core function. Which is NOT how skills work in reality. People who know how to fight with swords do not suddenly forget how to fight because they pick up an axe.

This sort of system is overly punishing and inefficient, and does not reflect reality. This isn't even a dig against long skill lists (in the sense of defining specific functions), specifically, but about implementation. Specific functions ideally should still exist, but they should NOT be treated as separate unrelated skills, but as specialties of general skills dealing with core, universal functions, like melee combat, ranged combat, technology, academic knowledge or piloting. That way you have general competency in one core function, but may still define things you've specifically mastered within those areas of activity, rather than spread Every. Single. Point. you've got into a dozen variations of the same thing, that might not even come up during play, just to have mild competency in those areas.

I respectfully disagree for two reasons. 1) Swords and axes are used very differently; they have different striking motions, muscle groups, and tactics. Granted this is a quibble over one example, and I agree that in real life being skilled in combat in general affects different weapon skills. 2) That said, in a game your solution would get lost in the mushiness of rolling dice. Say my sword skill is 60% and my axe skill is 10%. Your argument seems to be that some sword skill overflows into axe, so axe should really be what 30%? Thing is, I'm mostly going to use sword anyway and the few times I use axe, the difference between 10% and 30% is not going to register as statistically significant. If I use axe to the extent that 30% vs 10% does become statistically significant, then axe should still artificially suck for sake of narrative. If multiple weapons skills are all close in level and training in one means training in another, then what's the point in specializing? Without forcing specialization, choices become gray and characters become samey. I might as well throw points into bladed weapons because it benefits sword and axe. Soon all characters are all pretty good at both. IMO, it's better to have the sword guy and the axe guy, even if a little unrealistic.

1) Striking motions for most melee weapons are almost identical and share practically the same muscle groups. I know cuz weapon training is my go-to physical exercise these days, and I train primarily with swords and staves, but have also messed around with knives, hammers, walking canes and sticks, and they all tend to translate (stick fighting in particular is identical with swords, and canes have much in common with sticks--and therefore swords--and staves). Even seemingly disparate weapons like swords vs poles involve similar maneuvers that work basically the same muscles. You just need to compensate for different weight distribution and dimensions, and occasionally for special features, like hooks (if you're fighting with a walking cane or using the axe head as a hooking implement). But such features don't require drastically different techniques than what you'd normally use when striking or tripping opponents, and once you become experienced with fighting techniques, it becomes almost second nature to figure out how to use those features (hooking with a cane is very similar to tripping with a stave, only easier, cuz the hook gives you an edge).

Edit: Even when you need specific training to properly handle a weapon, that training is more in terms of "becoming used to the weapon", than learning radically different techniques. And once you master a weapon you pretty much can fight at the same level as you would with any other weapon. In old D&D or 3e terms, is more like gaining "proficiency", rather than leaning an entirely new skill.

2) What I'm proposing is making general skills the ONLY "skills" in terms of level development and specializations basically a one time bonus (like maybe +2 or so, depending on the system) on top of your skill level. Depending on how granular you want it to be, specialties could gain multiple ranks for increased bonuses, but I wouldn't recommend making it more than two or three ranks tops (Expert, Master, Grandmaster?). Also, the idea that you would only use a sword is very meta. Sometimes all you have is a stick you found in the ground. Granted, in game play that relies on the GM paying attention to stuff like disarming, or potentially losing your weapon if you fall, etc.

Yeah - while not a skill-based system, that was one thing that I felt 3.x did pretty well. You can focus on a particular weapon for a slight boost (Weapon Focus), but for the most part it's just based upon your BAB & attributes.

I know that when I recently replayed a piece of Baldur's Gate, the 2e specializations kinda grated. I had a character fully specialized in longswords (probably the most common magic sword in the game), but then I happened to pick up an awesome katana, and it was basically just dead weight to him. A katana is practically the same thing!

rytrasmi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1075
Re: Cyberpunk RED
« Reply #49 on: November 17, 2020, 11:36:19 AM »
1) Striking motions for most melee weapons are almost identical and share practically the same muscle groups. I know cuz weapon training is my go-to physical exercise these days, and I train primarily with swords and staves, but have also messed around with knives, hammers, walking canes and sticks, and they all tend to translate (stick fighting in particular is identical with swords, and canes have much in common with sticks--and therefore swords--and staves). Even seemingly disparate weapons like swords vs poles involve similar maneuvers that work basically the same muscles. You just need to compensate for different weight distribution and dimensions, and occasionally for special features, like hooks (if you're fighting with a walking cane or using the axe head as a hooking implement). But such features don't require drastically different techniques than what you'd normally use when striking or tripping opponents, and once you become experienced with fighting techniques, it becomes almost second nature to figure out how to use those features (hooking with a cane is very similar to tripping with a stave, only easier, cuz the hook gives you an edge).

Edit: Even when you need specific training to properly handle a weapon, that training is more in terms of "becoming used to the weapon", than learning radically different techniques. And once you master a weapon you pretty much can fight at the same level as you would with any other weapon. In old D&D or 3e terms, is more like gaining "proficiency", rather than leaning an entirely new skill.

2) What I'm proposing is making general skills the ONLY "skills" in terms of level development and specializations basically a one time bonus (like maybe +2 or so, depending on the system) on top of your skill level. Depending on how granular you want it to be, specialties could gain multiple ranks for increased bonuses, but I wouldn't recommend making it more than two or three ranks tops (Expert, Master, Grandmaster?). Also, the idea that you would only use a sword is very meta. Sometimes all you have is a stick you found in the ground. Granted, in game play that relies on the GM paying attention to stuff like disarming, or potentially losing your weapon if you fall, etc.

I have no basis to challenge your actual experience, aside from chopping wood, messing around with a bokken, and fencing classes long ago. However, in my reading these things were used very differently in combat. Axes chop and many types of sword, especially things like the Roman gladius, poke. Often (it seems) swords were used to find cracks in armor or gaps between shields and then thrust in. You cannot do that with an axe. Rather, you'd probably be striking the armor/shield directly trying to rend it. You also have a guard on swords that is not found on axes, making parrying a sane choice.

I think that weapon specialization was very much a thing in the middle ages (maybe not in the systems you play). Give a pikeman a sword and yeah he could probably kill someone with it. But give your unit of 80 pikemen swords and you're gonna lose the battle. If you've trained with swords your whole life and suddenly you need to improvise with a stick, yeah of course, you will be better at it than the milkmaid. But these kinds of situations are unusual in play and, I'd argue, should run against the sword-less swordsman for sake of narrative. It makes it more exiting when he does actually succeed with the stick, as opposed to being all around pretty good with everything. Losing the sword has to matter and the difference between weapon choice of a +2 does not matter in the typical combat.


The worms crawl in and the worms crawl out
The ones that crawl in are lean and thin
The ones that crawl out are fat and stout
Your eyes fall in and your teeth fall out
Your brains come tumbling down your snout
Be merry my friends
Be merry

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4013
Re: Cyberpunk RED
« Reply #50 on: November 17, 2020, 11:41:04 AM »
I don't necessary hate or dislike long skill lists. Too short and then it seems like every new book has a new skill to make up for the lack of skills. Too many and it can sometimes feel like a chore making a character and sometimes redundant skills. As long as the rules are clear and concise short or long skill lists won't kill my interest in a game. Though I prefer the middle option skill lists that are neither too short or too long.

Either way I will probably skip on Cyberpunk Red simply because I am more of a fan of Shadowrun and because of Mike Pondsmith suddenly jumping on the SJW kool-aid drinking bandwagon.

As for the PF2 DEvs saying the never looked at 5E to develop PF2. Yeah they are full of bullshit. They claimed that their was never a need for PF2 and suddenly once 5E was announced out of the blue a product called Pathfinder Unchained appeared on the release list totally by sheer coincidence I am sure. Which included many elements that went first in Starfinder than PF2. Other than that yeah I am sure the PF2 devs "never" looked at 5e. Just as Im sure the 5E devs "never" looked at PF 1E while making their new edition. After all why look at an rpg that was taking away sales and market share for inspiration or anything.
Well... maybe. Although I suspect said books were driven more by Paizo's incompetence at playtesting and balance than by a need to compete with 5E, at least initially.

Yeah, I'm still disgusted it took Unchained to unfuck the PF monk class, and it's still not great.


Alderaan Crumbs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 784
Re: Cyberpunk RED
« Reply #51 on: November 17, 2020, 02:31:55 PM »
Seriously, what the hell did Pondsmith say/do that’s so egregious?
Playing: With myself.
Running: Away from bees.
Reading: My signature.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
Re: Cyberpunk RED
« Reply #52 on: November 17, 2020, 02:38:58 PM »
Seriously, what the hell did Pondsmith say/do that’s so egregious?
I believe that he made a pro-BLM statement online somewhere. For some, this is apparently enough that he should be destroyed.

Charon's Little Helper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
Re: Cyberpunk RED
« Reply #53 on: November 17, 2020, 02:51:03 PM »
I don't necessary hate or dislike long skill lists. Too short and then it seems like every new book has a new skill to make up for the lack of skills. Too many and it can sometimes feel like a chore making a character and sometimes redundant skills. As long as the rules are clear and concise short or long skill lists won't kill my interest in a game. Though I prefer the middle option skill lists that are neither too short or too long.

Either way I will probably skip on Cyberpunk Red simply because I am more of a fan of Shadowrun and because of Mike Pondsmith suddenly jumping on the SJW kool-aid drinking bandwagon.

As for the PF2 DEvs saying the never looked at 5E to develop PF2. Yeah they are full of bullshit. They claimed that their was never a need for PF2 and suddenly once 5E was announced out of the blue a product called Pathfinder Unchained appeared on the release list totally by sheer coincidence I am sure. Which included many elements that went first in Starfinder than PF2. Other than that yeah I am sure the PF2 devs "never" looked at 5e. Just as Im sure the 5E devs "never" looked at PF 1E while making their new edition. After all why look at an rpg that was taking away sales and market share for inspiration or anything.
Well... maybe. Although I suspect said books were driven more by Paizo's incompetence at playtesting and balance than by a need to compete with 5E, at least initially.

Yeah, I'm still disgusted it took Unchained to unfuck the PF monk class, and it's still not great.

The PF monk was solid before Unchained if you used the Qinggong archetype (which was basically a stealth buff), especially if you stacked it with 1-2 other archetypes. My favorite PF monk is still my dwarf Drunken Master who would take a swig of hooch every round of combat as a swift action for more ki (the feat required an 18+ CON). I even considered stacking it with the Sensei archetype (getting 3 total archetypes) in order to be able to use infinite ki powers for the whole group - doing things like giving the whole group Barkskin perpetually as well as giving True Strike every round along with Inspire Courage.

Now - the base PF monk was pretty bad - only a bit better than the 3.5 version. But if you used the Qinggong archetype and stacked 1-2 more, they could be very solid well before the Unchained version - which is a better beatstick, but lost some of the utility of the previous version.

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4013
Re: Cyberpunk RED
« Reply #54 on: November 17, 2020, 03:03:05 PM »

The PF monk was solid before Unchained if you used the Qinggong archetype (which was basically a stealth buff), especially if you stacked it with 1-2 other archetypes. My favorite PF monk is still my dwarf Drunken Master who would take a swig of hooch every round of combat as a swift action for more ki (the feat required an 18+ CON). I even considered stacking it with the Sensei archetype (getting 3 total archetypes) in order to be able to use infinite ki powers for the whole group - doing things like giving the whole group Barkskin perpetually as well as giving True Strike every round along with Inspire Courage.

Now - the base PF monk was pretty bad - only a bit better than the 3.5 version. But if you used the Qinggong archetype and stacked 1-2 more, they could be very solid well before the Unchained version - which is a better beatstick, but lost some of the utility of the previous version.
It's not a good sign when to be viable, the class needs an archetype from a later splat.

I grant that Qinggong is very effective, and Unchained is basically an extension of Qinggong.

Nephil

  • Newbie
  • *
  • N
  • Posts: 43
Re: Cyberpunk RED
« Reply #55 on: November 17, 2020, 05:11:19 PM »
So, to get this thead back on track, exactly how many skills does the new Cyberpunk have? Did they at least pare down the number of skills from the 2020 version?
« Last Edit: November 17, 2020, 05:13:20 PM by Nephil »

Jaeger

  • That someone better.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1536
Re: Cyberpunk RED
« Reply #56 on: November 17, 2020, 06:05:15 PM »

... Some people still play GURPS you know?

And what's this shit about OSR and 5e and, I assume Pathfinder?  ...  If you are complaining that not all games are 5e ...

Oh hell no. I think we are talking past each other.

Currently playing in a 5e game - if I was to give my opinion on the system, I would be accused of D&D hate.

It always strikes me that whenever some of these older games are brought out again in a "new" edition - It never seems to occur to the designers that there are other ways of doing skills that would give the PC's the same ability to differentiate their characters while streamlining the system.

It's like they don't play any other RPG's between editions.

And not only do people play Grups, they willingly play Hero as well... *shudder*



Oh, I see the problem here. You are one of those mental midgets that infest the hobby today. It must really impair your ability to accomplish anything not being able to count past 20 or to follow Attack score - AC = Target Number

Look everyone, a personal attack:  The cornerstone of all well articulated arguments.
"The envious are not satisfied with equality; they secretly yearn for superiority and revenge."

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: Cyberpunk RED
« Reply #57 on: November 17, 2020, 08:59:20 PM »
Seriously, what the hell did Pondsmith say/do that’s so egregious?
I believe that he made a pro-BLM statement online somewhere. For some, this is apparently enough that he should be destroyed.
Just holding him to the same standard as BLM holds others.  Once a white man owned a black man.   For some, this is apparently enough that all white men should be destroyed.

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: Cyberpunk RED
« Reply #58 on: November 17, 2020, 09:06:31 PM »
The problem with long skill lists is that they define what a character can't do, rather than what they can.

Either that, or you end up with characters with huge numbers of skills, so that chargen is a chore. Plus if the design goal is to have broadly competent characters, why not boil it down to a smaller list anyway.

How long is long is going to vary by taste of course.
Exactly.   All of the posts about swords and axes miss the point.  If I have a +200 to drive a BMW but no bonus for driving a Mercedes,  then your skill system is too granular.   Large skill lists just artificially separate actions that share the same bases.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2020, 10:00:38 PM by Eirikrautha »

Marchand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • M
  • Posts: 304
Re: Cyberpunk RED
« Reply #59 on: November 17, 2020, 09:44:35 PM »
So, to get this thead back on track, exactly how many skills does the new Cyberpunk have? Did they at least pare down the number of skills from the 2020 version?

66 by my count off the character sheet, plus 10 role abilities. That's not counting specialisations for Language, Science or Play Instrument.

How long is too long? My view is, games get into trouble when they start trying to model what people might actually know, rather than what might come up in a game. Cyberpunk's systems primarily support combat (physical and social), and netrunning, with a generic task system for everything else. If the game is skills-driven, why provide a load of skills that aren't supported by the game's system?

The old BRP Ringworld went way off the other direction - characters could be centuries old and training was relatively easy (in VR), so it was expected you would reach your "root maximum" in say Physics fairly early on, and then have to split off into Cosmology, Crystallography etc. etc. But that sort of worked as well, because it was supported with an "experimentation" minigame.
 
"If the English surrender, it'll be a long war!"
- Scottish soldier on the beach at Dunkirk