it really depends on the context of the game. But a small favor once per session sounds pretty good for a 5xp talent to me.

I wouldn't replace computers, just let it function as computers for a technomancers. That leaves the option open for the technomancer who knows how to do technomancy things, also know how to do computer things the mundane way. Of course that also depends on the level of granularity you are going for in that particular game. For example deckers and riggers will need the computers skill (though i would consider doing what it looks like android is doing and split it into 2 skills Hacking and SysOps). but ya, it's a super rough idea, but i think it could work really well with some refinement and is a pretty elegant way to handle techomancers within the genesys system.

i've seen a lot of threads like these over the years since eote came out, and as a longtime shadowrunner (started with 2e) i can tell you with 100% confidence there are only 2 things you need to do to play shadowrun using the genesys system 1 - Just port the setting, throw away the SR mechanics. The strength of shadowrun has always been the amazing setting. The mechanics of shadowrun have always gotten in the way of that setting. It's something players tolerated instead of enjoyed in order to play shadowrun. 2- Use/create genesys styled mechanics to handle what you feel absolutely needs to exist for the "shadowrun feel". This is explicitly not directly porting shadowruns bad mechanical nature. Examples pulled out of thin air as i write this - With overcasting (the SR name for it) just use the rules for Blood Sacrifice. Instead of a t2 talent, it's just a thing all spellcasters can do, with a limit equal to X. Where X is some limiting factor that would need to be play tested. I would personally suggest starting with casting characteristic/2 round up. So a character with Intelligence of 5 using the default arcane school from the CRB. could add 3 successes for 3 wounds as an overcast. That gives you room to increase or decrease it, or change what X is after some testing. I find that the way genesys handles cybernetics works quite well for shadowrun. Using brawn as a limiter for cyber instead of an essence stat kinda makes sense to me. However a large part of shadowrun has always been magic vs machine, which genesys doesn't address, and is quite important for the setting. Now you could go about adding an essence stat, and trying to rejigger a bunch of genesys' system to work with that. OR, you add a simple line to the cyber section using systems genesys already has in place.. "for every 1 brawn you have of cyberware (round up), add one downgrade for all magic checks". Now we can make burnout mages. 2 points of cyber, 2 downgrades on magic checks. This doesn't try to use the same mechanics as shadowrun, but instead captures the same feel. The less meat and more machine, the less the connection with magic. Technomancers? make a new magic skill, let them use that skill for hacking via the hacking rules. And, figure out what magical actions make sense for a technomancer, as well as nay restrictions that should apply. resonance? we can cover that the same way as we covered essence for magic. Adepts? those might need some trickery "these are not jedi" No seriously, steal from SWRPG. Give them Power points, which are just SWRPG force points. and give them adept powers, which are just the SWRPG force powers that make sense for an adept to have. The essense problem? reduce their maximum (and/or current) "power points" by the amount of cyber they have. Now these are just starting points, but it's capturing the feel and flavor of shadowrun (a system i really really hate, but a setting i love) within the amazing toolbox that is genesys. Don't port mechanics, port the setting. or ya know, i could just be spewing crazy all over and should be ignored. Both are equally as likely.

Brawn is a fairly underused stat outside of melee, hence it's scaling there. It makes the big musclebound brute scarier than the waif. There is actually quite a bit of balance complexity that goes into melee scaling with brawn, and the finesse style feats keeping that scaling. It really really makes those feats overvalued by 1-2 talent tiers because you get the best of everything and brawn continues to be a dumpstat mechanically even for melee based characters. On a mechanical level it's kinda just removing the characteristic. On a simulationist level it's saying "real muscle power down't matter when you hit things". And, on a narrative level it kinda does all sorts of funky thing "You mean that rail-thin guy just hit me for how much? oh ... that big buster sword is based off his agility/cunning/wisdom." Now all that said. It's all really minutiae that can really depend on the people at the table, their playstyles, and how the game is run. For example, if all melee weapons are "powered" or enhanced with magic, or *insert some other reason brawn wouldn't matter anyway* like lightsabers, then it functionally doesn't really matter. However i would urge you to ask yourself some questions before making a change like this. What problem does this solve? Is that or How is that already handled by the system? Does that work? If not why? Does this fix that problem? What are the gains of doing it this way? What are the costs of doing it this way? Are those costs acceptable? What are the side effects of doing it this way? Are those side effects acceptable? Will this make the game more fun for those at the table? (this is really the most important question) Am i changing something just to change something? (this is the second most important question, and often a difficult one to honestly answer)

The damage might be similar or identical at a characteristic of 3, but most often a character will have a characteristic of 4 in their chosen field, which more often than not tips the damage in favor of melee weapons. Sword 7 damage (3+4) + free offhand Shields are very good defensively dual wielding is really good offensively Hold a torch, carry something, ability to do things with a free hand Greatsword 8 damage (4+4) greatswords do have a agility requirement, other 2 handed weapons do not Bow/Longbow 7/8 damage (flat damage ratings) requires ammo penalties when you are in melee penalties when your allies are in melee with the target As for soak, with a brawn of 3 and a sword, that is a damage code of 6 (3+3) + net hits. So minimum 7 damage. By the time things have that much soak you should either have a way to handle it or the GM isn't playing fair in my opinion.

I see alot of people are suggestion mechanics to handle this, and i'm not saying those aren't good suggestions. But .... this really feels like a narrative thing more than a mechanical thing. One thing you need to realize off the bat, is that when you have a character with a limited life span the attachment of a player (on average, there are exceptions of course) will diminish. And if there are readily available replacement characters the attachment will further diminish with each progressive character. If you do not have readily available replacement characters the attachment to the game will diminish. Anyone who has ever played through the original tomb of horrors will understand this effect. You come with 5+ characters, the first one might be your favorite with a name and somebackstory. the 5th is Fighter #3, a collection of stats to accomplish a goal, or it might even be fighter #1 with the "#1" crossed out/erased and replaced with #3. Now that isn't always a problem, and if done well it could be a boon. But random, uncontrollable "Your character is dead" rarely makes players want to invest narrative in a character. I would suggest that instead you try to find an individual "Arc" for each character (or a for all of the characters as whole), working with the player(s) to accomplish that arc. Then at the end of it, their time is up. It allows and encourages them to invest in the character narrative because they have some control over it. It also doesn't have the random "your character is dead" effect. Kind of like a long-shot, where it isn't a full long form campaign, but is a longer than a single session for a one shot.

I find myself in very strong agreement with @Sturn here. I 100% would suggest using a map, and minis. They can add so much to a game, even if they aren't required or high quality (rough sketch and dice as mini's works just fine). But would be very hard pressed to agree that using a grid of any sort with them. I've always found that a grid locks things down too much and is too precises for the strengths of genesys/swrpg. All that said, i could also be 100% wrong lol. As long as the people at the table are having fun, that is all that really matters. Even doing things an incorrect way, doesn't make it incorrect fun =P

It's not about trust, it's about setting precedent. Once they let one person it opens the door for others. That dilutes the market, and because it is a market centered on their product they want the first crack at it. Just throwing devs and writers at things doesn't always increase production speed, and often risks a quality vs quantity failure. I've seen a lot of people with the "i would love to make material for genesys" but they leave off the "If i can get paid for it" part. That makes it work. It might be work you enjoy. It might be work that is very beneficial to others. It might be a lot of things, but when cash exchanges hands it changes the equation. We as gamers have seen this with the 3.x DnD fiasco where overnight there was so much garbage thrown up to sell that anything good and decent got lost in the tidal wave. Or just look at the quality control problems Steam has had over the years with asset flips and the like. With little to no control, there is little to no control over the quality. With poor quality comes a loss of customer trust and retention. Without customer trust the market dries up. I do hope they find a way to solve that problem, as there are a lot of really great fan made supplements and tools currently. But again, once money is changing hands it changes the equation, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. Anyone who "Would love to make material for genesys" and "For the love of the game" can already do so. If the possibility of not being able to market a product and make money off of that is preventing them. It isn't "for the love of the game" it's because the work doesn't pay enough. And that is fine. But own it for what it is.

If you are asking about the viability of renaming. !00% do it, it's actually suggest by the CRB iirc, or atleast heavily implied. If you want feedback on your specific ideas. I would say be very careful about spliting and/or combining skills, and more careful with characteristics. It can be done, and it could work out well. I would just ask yourself these questions when doing it, becuase tinkering with the base level of the game (characteristics) can have some unintended and/or unwanted side effects. What am i trying to achieve mechanically and narratively? Does this accomplish that in as simple a fashion as needed? What does this add to the Game? Why is that needed and/or not covered by the base mechanics? Does this need to be a Mechanical Change? or Does a narrative change accomplish the goal? For skills i would suggest consolidating skills that would not be used much in favor of allowing players to be better at those things with less investment. For example if combat is a rarity in your game, consolodating skills into just "Ranged" and "Melee" could be boon to the players. It means they are better at those things via needing to invest in less skills. This also allows you to "Direct" XP into things that are important to your game. If you have 2 combat skills, and 6 social skills that should tell the players that the combat is either less important, or less frequent than social will be. Like wise you can do that in the inverse for a combat heavy game. Or if you have 12 different knowledge skills, but only 2 combat skills and 3 social skills, it should tell the players that those knowledge skills are going to be much more important in the minutiae than social or combat skills will be. Basically when changing or creating rules the more space/text/effort devoted to a rule the more important those rules tend to be in play. If a game has 100 pages of rules, and 80 of those pages are about combat rules, that means the game is primarily intended to be about combat. The space denotes the importance. So expand and give space/importance to the rules that shape the type of game you want to play ? As for how they will work at the table and such. We can give advice, we can critique, and we can offer suggestions. But at the end of the day ya gotta test them in action to get a real feel for them, and more importantly how your players will view them.

I've played in a few long running games, a few high XP games, and i think the system holds up just fine. becuase strain and wounds do not directly scale with XP (though you can get things like toughened and grit as talents) player durability can increase, but it has to be a significant investment in either XP, items, or both. This means that minions are just about as deadly at gen as they are at any other XP level. Now the players will get better, as their skills increase. They will get more options, as they get talents and train new skills. But the cap for "how good you are at a thing" in genesys is much lower compared to starting values than it is in other popular systems. The big trick is in balancing encounters both on a narrative and mechanical level to keep them interesting. Which can take some practice as a GM, but is also very rewarding once that groundwork is laid. @verdantsf has quite a bit of experience with high XP value, and long running games. If he is willing to share it, i would listen to any advice he gives on the matter ? he's also a excellent GM and someone i very much enjoy gaming with on either side of the table.

Paralyze isn't an "i win button" in combat, nor should it be, but it's pretty damned close. You've implied a condition that REMOVES their actions, and their ability to take actions. This means they cannot drop an action to a maneuver, and they cannot use actions to fight back. You've traded 1 of your maneuvers for their action, this is huge. Sure they can take a second maneuver to run away, at the cost of 2 strain. But while they are running away at 2 strain per round, you are one maneuver behind them with an action. One thing you could do would be to throw an ice attack spell at them, or anything else that has the ensnare quality to remove their ability to use maneuvers at all. Meaning they can't take actions or maneuvers. You can even do this is in same round with the T4 talent "Conduit" from RoT, allowing you to cast a spell as a maneuver 1/encounter. Removing someone's ability to take actions is huge, it's combat winning huge. This is only multiplied when you factor in the fact that the examples above are for the caster by themselves. Now imagine you have a party memeber or ally with the T2 (i think it's t2, might be t1) talent "Hamstring Shot" from the CRB, which also limits movement, or some other way to apply ensare (of which there are plenty). Paralyze, and curse in general, is an amazing force multiplier. Most likely one of the strongest skillsets in the game for taking down a dangerous adversary. It's kinda stupid good.

yes and no. In short have a discussion as a group on how to handle it. Does the spell instantly fail? Or, Does the caster have the opportunity to spend another maneuver to maintain the concentration? Both could work, and this might actually be a really good question for the Devs via the FAQ to see their intent and help groups form their own intent from that. As with all things genesys the specific context can really matter, but consistency within how the group treats it internally is the most important factor, at least to me.

totally 100% agree. But it seemed a large amount of the discussion was on "is it broke to heal yourself over and over" instead of "Why would you let someone cast heal over and over to heal strain, when you wouldn't let them use X skill over and over to heal strain?". Now i do agree, the game doesn't say you can't just cast heal over and over. In fact the game doesn't really say how long it takes to cast anything other than "1 action". As a GM i wouldn't allow a PC to cast heal over and over, the same i wouldn't allow them to use athletics to skip to the next encounter, roll the dice, and recover strain with advantages. Nor would i as a player expect it. Which is where table manners comes in. I might not allow it as a GM nor expect it, but that is more anecdotal than anything. To that end the proper way to balance it isn't by RAW, but by RAU (Rules as Used). That social contract between the group at the table that says "I won't be an ******* if you won't". Or using the already existing mechanics such as the table on CRB 210 as i mentioned originally. Instead of bolting on homebrew restrictions and complications. to a simple and elegant system. Of course i could always just be spouting crazy, it's been known to happen =P. As i said earlier, i loved the episode and look forward to part 2 enthusiastically ?

totally, i ment within the context of the rules ? the strain after the roll is resolved is one of the most elegant and "simple but effective" things i love about the genesys magic system.

I kept wanting to yell during the "Casting heal on yourself" segment. It's really a non-issue. On any spell you can use 1 advantage to heal 1 strain, this is exactly the same as casting heal on yourself. They key here isn't mechanics, it's table manners. Just as you wouldn't let someone cast augment over and over to heal strain via advantage, just have a conversation about table manners. It's a bag of rats situation. Now you can also use mechanics to adjust it via the table on page 210 "Penalties while casting spells" Specifically the last one. Being injured and trying to heal yourself sounds like it might be difficult to concentrate to me. Then with that (or those if it is more than one) upgrade, you get a despair, there is all kinds of bad that can happen. So while i agree, "spamming" the heal spell sounds like a big problem, it's really not just by RAW. Of course homebrew is always great, and can be good. There were several good suggestions you all threw around regarding it. Just need to find what works for the table that is playing the game. In general though, excellent episode. I thoroughly enjoyed it even if i, respectfully, disagree'd with some points. Keep up the great work ?