So, because I'm sick of blah blah blah whine whine whine about the metaMUSH, a query slightly less likely to cause bloodshed for you, my dear MUSHlings.

If you could implement one house rule (SR4) and one house rule only, what would it be, and why? There's a good list in SR4 if you need some ideas, which I doubt you do, because you're all horribly opinionated and I love you for it, even when you're wrong. (Which you usually are. Like me. We should totally start a club.)

Personally, I'd do away with the Automatics skill. You fire a bloody assault rifle the same way you do a sporter. Ditto for machine pistols and handguns. We've already got noteworthy penalties for just cutting loose on full-auto (as it should be, because it's not easy to hit shit like that), there's no need for an entire separate skill.

I would do away with the tweaking the rules sections.

My house rule would be: no houserules allowed!

However, since the houserule disallowing houserules would itself be a houserule, one of two things would happen: a) It would negate itself and disappear, or b) it would create a paradox that destroys the universe.

Anyway, your houserule makes sense Waffle.  It's disappointing how the pistols skill, formerly so badass, is relegated to wussy characters who just want a concealable way to defend themselves.  But, as I'm sure you know, if we change the automatics skill, the longarms skill would become too powerful, so we'd have to alter that, which would make the pistols skill too weak or something, blah blah blah...  In the end, my rule is the best.  At least if it destroys the universe we won't be menaced by any more apocalyptic houserule cascades.

I suppose it would depend on if there were any houserules in the first place. Because if there are, see, then it's an irresistible force hitting an immovable object and we're fucked. If not, it's an irresistable force 'resisting' itself, which is just fine. (Proof available upon receipt of $AU 25.00 and a pheasant dressed as a Gundam.)

Also, I changed my mind. New house rule: No more buzzkills that masquerade as booze. Especially not pretentious euro-trash booze.

Speaking of cascade failures, I'd nominate blood spirits for houseruling. As it stands now, the maximum amount of essence a blood spirit can drain is determined by the spirit's force. The problem is blood spirits gain force for essence on a 1 to 1 ratio whenever they energy drain. In other words, they essentially have completely uncapped stats and the means to reach dragon squishing proportions rather easily. Even as a GM only magical threat they're rather broken. It's just a messy mechanic.

My house rule would be that you put all the money you have to pay utilities in the center of the board and whenever you land on free parking you get that money.

My House Rule would be to make dodging of Grenades to incorporate a move action, thus forfetting your next action so as to not be blown to smithereens and clean up that section of combat a bit.

I prefer no houserules, honestly, just like Tear said, and sofar none of the other houserules people want to enact are things I'd want to enact. That seems to be a case for no houserules.

However, since you're asking...

I'd houserule that armor stacking has the same penalties, but at least gives you half the bonus of the second piece of armor.

It seems a little silly that stacking two pieces of armor in the rules not only penalizes you, but offers no extra benifit.

Shadowrun: Well, if you're stupid enough to wear alot of armor, we might as well make it do nothing.

The least that one could do if having half armor from the second piece is too unbalancing, is take away the penalty and just say: You can only EVER wear one piece of armor at a time. Or wearing more than one piece offers no benifit.

As it is, it's silly.

Leather Long-Coat and Bullet Proof Vest? OMGZ, PENALTIEZ!

Maybe it'd cause some balance problems but the rule as written makes no sense.

I think you could come up with a situation where it would make a difference, like when you're wearing one piece with high ballistic and low impact, and another with low ballistic and high impact, the highest benefit of each would apply.  So if you wear clothes with 3 ballistic and 1 impact and a riot shield with 4 impact and 2 ballistic, you'd have 3 ballistic and 4 impact, but you'd be subject to being slowed down.  I don't think it will come up too often, but I think they anticipated the situation and decided it would be confusing if there was no rule at all.

Of course, armor sucks butt now, since each point of armor just gives you 1/3 of a damage resistance hit.  The simultaneously made it harder to pile on armor and made armor less effective.

You can't have a shield and armor? What about riot cops? Boo!

Actually my example situation might be faulty - I think riot shields and helmets do stack with whatever other armor you wear still.  That was just the only example of something I could think of that had good impact and bad ballistic...

Shields and helmets stack with armor, I scoured the rules on them when I made my Troll example. However, a camo coat and a longcoat, will not, or armored clothing and an armored longcoat, will not.

Which I agree is rather lame. Some armors -should- stack together. To not stack makes no sense at all.

To clarify, there still aren't going to be any house rules in the Beta. This is just for talky. I'm sorry if that stupid tag next to my name made you think otherwise. I'm going to go flagellate myself now.

That's kinky.

New house rule: we are all sinners and must repent, for the Rapture is upon us!

Dude...  Is there a rapture themed MUX?  I'm scared now that I had that thought