Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: sunnyside Aug 16 2008, 12:57 AM

When I first got into RPGs the general feeling (and that espoused by some of the game store people selling them) was that here was a thing where you could buy it and you'd be using it indefinitly. Unlike, say, a video game where you play it and then it's time to buy the next in the series.

D&D had a second edition out and maybe some others. But usually that was viewed as upgrading from the neonatal garage production quality of the origional rules (i.e. stuff that looked like the white box).

However now in everything from RPGs to Wargames new editions is just part of the business model. While you could of course play old rules indefinitly in maybe an average between the various systems of five years there will be a new edition and your pile of books is going to need replacing.

I'm not sure what to think of that. On one hand in theory the new editions should be "better". And also new editions coming out seems to charge the game community. I believe there was a role playing surge that came along with D&D 3rd edition at least and their promotion blitz. But on the other it kinda sucks having a pile of books nearly invalidated.

I know it's made me rather more finiky since I look at books as temporary investments. I've also found myself evaluating things based on how old the current edition is. Especially crunch type books. I'll almost always get a crunch book released in the first year or two of a new edition, but I become more reluctant as it gets closer to when I now expect a new edition to drop and invalidate them.

Posted by: HeavyMetalYeti Aug 16 2008, 01:22 AM

I'm still trying to get the boss to let me invest in the 4E.

"You got a pile of books in the garage you never use."

"Hon, those are all outdated second edition."

"Well you never use them. What makes you think that you will use the new ones."

"...."

Posted by: DocTaotsu Aug 16 2008, 03:51 AM

I'm... I dunno. Everytime a game system comes out there are all kinds of bugs and problems with it and the community picks it apart pointing out all the geehaw that's busted and retarded. A couple years later the game designers congeal all those concerns into a spiffy new edition and release it to three basic groups of gamers:
1. The Old Version Was Best, Stop Raping My Childhood!
2. Oh Thank God, They Finally Fixed X So I Can Stop House Ruling It
3. Newbies

They typically take this time to advance or expand the basic world plot which is of the most concern for the first 2 groups (usually the first).

Some games do this well (I happen to like 4th ed SR, although I wouldn't be opposed to playing 3rd at some point). And others... not to my tastes.

4th Ed D&D has zero interest to me because:
A. There wasn't really a "metaplot" to speak of and we've homebrewed settings and plot from the beginning.
B. The basic game mechanics don't appeal to me.

A lot that has to do with the fact that I just don't like D&D in general anymore. The game system is restrictive and arcane, the setting materials... generally pretty lame. I maintain a 3.5 ed library out of nostalgia and backwards compatibility.


Now as to the whole "Game Industry Model". Game designers have to release new editions, I just don't see this being a very profitable industry for them if they don't. The whole promotion thing is vital towards getting new players involved and maintaining their market share (After all, all those old players don't necessarily transition towards the new gear). They only make money as long as they sell books and the fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter if those books ever get used or not. I'm not really sure what the alternative would be... released supplements? Supplements are typically aimed at their existing audience and of that only those that are interested in whatever that supplement is about. I don't really care about hacking so I haven't bought Unwired, I have a pretty decent interest in setting material so I'd definitely pick up Shadows of South America (if that ever gets released).

I wrote a whole micro economic example of why game companies need to keep releasing new versions but it was boring and probably a little off. In my mind it boils down to this:
RPG making has a lot in common with the book publishing industry. High overhead costs, high initial costs, and rather low profit margins. That's why things like lulu and eBooks are such an important part of the future of RPG publishing, they cut out those costs and let designers focus on enhancing current products rather than re-inventing the wheel every 3 years just so they can justify their continued existence. Under the current dead-tree model publishers rely upon new editions for revenue because:
1. The old player base repurchases their "new" product to stay current.
2. New players see something shiny and new on the racks and pick it up to try it out.

A new release has built in advertising, even if WotC hadn't dumped big money into promoting 4th ed, the buzz in the RPG community would have generated lots of free advertising dollars for them. A much bigger buzz than if they'd released a supplement or "rules expansion".


Okay, that kinda rambled but let see if I can sum this up.

New editions are the life blood of the industry (by industry I'm mostly taking about WotC). There are things in the works that might change that but for now they obey the dead-tree publishing laws that stipulate that selling less than <Large number> means you get almost zero profits given your massive initial outlay. Imagine if book publishing companies only published a handful of books, and never updated their catalog. Unless they're publishing the bible they'd be pretty screwed in short order. I'd imagine game publishers find themselves in the same fix, they need new editions to keep the revenues flowing so they don't have to get real jobs.

A smart gamer should recognize this and realize that nothing (save for convention play, another tricky tool of the oppressive gaming industry *cough cough eye roll*) is forcing them to buy new editions. If you're happy with what you have, to hell with the new stuff. Sure the guys who made that great game 10 years ago are trying to make a buck and keep making games but hey! The old ways still work! New editions are a necessary financial "evil" (aside from the fact the settings and mechanics might need updating)

Or something.

Posted by: DocTaotsu Aug 16 2008, 03:58 AM

One other thing, I think the reason we see a new edition game culture is because we have game designers who are trying to do this for a living. I respect that, I wish I had the balls to jump in feet first to do something I love but is kinda obscure. They gotta get fed, and they gotta make at least as much money as they would working at a legit job.

I get the impression that most game designers are not exactly driving Lamborghini's and living in the Hollywood hills. So I certainly cut them more slack than your average internet nerd.

Posted by: apollo124 Aug 16 2008, 05:39 AM

SR, at least, while updated for 4th ed is still basically the same game it was when 1st ed came out. The street shaman I created for my first game could easily be recreated today and still be just as bad-ass now as he was then. Sure, new tricks and details have been added, some game mechanics tweaked, the setting advanced a few years, and of course the SOTA marches on. But the essentials of the game remain the same.

Not so for D+D. 4th ed seems to be a radical change from what was to something I don't even hardly recognize. Maybe I'm just getting to be a crotchety old kook, but I don't like it at all. I don't even like Neverwinter Nights 2. I think the design choices in that game are pretty similar to what they did with the pen and paper version, according to what I've read.

I don't think there's much left to say about it, since Doctatsuo seems to have covered most of the bases. I'm willing to shell out some new money once in a while to get the new rules, as long as I think it's worthwhile. None of this V3.5 crap.

Posted by: BullZeye Aug 16 2008, 08:56 AM

Some of the games get better on new versions while others get worse what I've seen. Some games what I think went to worse might be from just my point of view, but at least one went totally busted on the last version. That game what I'm talking about is Cyberpunk. That was the first game I ever GMed and I still like the system and world a lot. When the new V3 came out, I bought it right away as I thought it was same, but better. How wrong was I... The book is just a total piece of ...carp. Amount of typos, the barbie-doll pictures and everything in the book sucks. Nowadays when a player needs to be punished or is asking a question they could find out themselves, it's enough to say "look from the book" and point to the V3

I have only browsed a bit on SR3 books (tho the supplements I've read bit more) so I can't comment is SR4 better or worse.

On a general level it appears that the rules are usually more refined in the new versions vs. the old and original ones. Sometimes they manage to get the same feel for the game but with new and improved rules while sometimes the whole feel of the game changes. The new feel might be for some better than the old one while to others the change of feel causes the "they ruined it!" reaction. And then there are games where the rules stay exactly the same but the game is changed totally but the name is still same

Posted by: Xiaan Aug 16 2008, 10:52 AM

As far as ShadowRun is concerned I'd have to say that fourth edition is what got me back into gaming. It'd been about four and a half years or so since I'd picked up my mechanical pencil and filled in some stats. I played Second and Third editions back when I was a young young man (not that I'm all that old now) but a little while before the Year of the Comet I had gone on and forgotten the wonders of rolling the dice. I wasn't reintroduced to SR until I was searching Amazon for a D&D 3.5 set for a comrade of mine that I found out that the world of ShadowRun had advanced along with RL. At the time I was deployed and was looking for a little distraction so I picked up the core book and gave it a look over. I was surprised at how much had changed, in the mechanics department, but it was all for the better. I never could get the handle of matrix runs back with third edition and tended to just fudge over it while GMing, not that the players I gamed with minded... they were the run and gun type anyways. But with the streamlined rules it was a whole lot easier to introduce a few more people to the world and start up a game. The various incarnations of games might get a little redundant... lord knows now that I'm back into it I wish that knee high stack of second and third edition source material was more than just useful for setting and history reference, but that shiny new book did get me to come back to the roots and have a damn good time at it.
Now as with D&D... never was really much of a fan... I liked the FASA settings alot and it seemed that if I wanted to play a game not set in the near future I'd just pick up my copy of Earthdawn and beat down some Cadavermen and Gobberogs. I guess I was just I lazy GM and liked not having to take up a week just to devise a setting. Long and short I don't even think i'll look at the fourth of D&D... just personal preference I guess.

Posted by: shadowfire Aug 16 2008, 03:41 PM

I always felt that you shouldn't fix it if there was nothing wrong with it (Which is why i will not be changing to 4th edition Shadowrun). Now this could not be said for D&D. I didn't care for 2nd edition, 3rd edition fixed the problems that 2nd had but just came with its own baggage, and 4th is trash. If anything 2nd was the best- but i have to say that they improved 2nd with hackmaster from everything i have seen and heard. But even with that in mind its not my type of game anyway.
I have only been playing for the last 10 years since high school. And my first exposure, unlike most people, was not D&D but palladium fantasy. Palladium has its own problems. i don't believe they need a new edition to fix these problems, just to print a revised edition that has the fixed problems within and rules for things that the game does not have as of now... The other problems would be rifts, but thats a whole other can of worms (too unbalanced).
have never played any of the earthdawn editions so i couldn't say whether or not the new edition was needed. But i have to say that i have noticed that every time there is a new edition to a game it seems like they are trying to make so that the players have to put less thought to the game. Is not thinking part of role playing? I always enjoyed role playing more when i had to stretched my brain a bit further than normal. which is one of the reasons shadowrun is one of my favorite games. i think this would be my main problem with new editions.

Posted by: Eugene Aug 17 2008, 12:45 AM

Generally I think that the motivation is largely financial or because a new company takes ownership and wants to make its own stamp. Sometimes it's legitimately because it's felt that a reorganization/upgrade is really warranted.

The real shame is that a lot of the material from old editions is suddenly perceived as worth less just because it's old. So, for example, FanPro editions of "Street Magic" were being sold off at half price by Studio 2 at Origins because Catalyst had another set printed with minor corrections and their label. That's even the same edition! What was the perceived value-difference there?

Posted by: deek Aug 18 2008, 03:27 PM

I'm torn, because part of me harkens back to the days of 2nd edition, pre-internet. I had no idea there was "errata" or any other kind of errors in a published book. We bought them, played them and had a lot of fun...

Having just gotten back into running and playing DnD and SR (I took a hiatus from about 1999 - 2005), I'm disappointed by how quickly every mistake is pointed out and the amount of errata that has to be put out. I mean, part of me thinks there were just as many errors "back in the day", its just they didn't filter down so quickly... I mean, nowadays, I can see errata pop up every couple weeks and things change a whole heck of a lot...even in game systems that seem very stable...

My DnD 4.0 book has about 8 pages of errata wedged in it, and I've only had them for a couple months... My SR4 campaign, I had to tote around about 20 pages of houserules/interpretations to make parts of it balanced and playable...

Are there really that many more mistakes these days?

Posted by: Eugene Aug 18 2008, 03:35 PM

No, but I think there's a demand for "official" answers now. Back in the day, you'd look at a rule and, if it didn't work for you, you'd come up with an alternative and move on. Today entitled Internet rage demands FAQs and errata.

Posted by: shadowfire Aug 18 2008, 03:41 PM

I can believe that there are more mistakes now a days than there was before. For one, a lot of people do tend to allow the computer to check for mistakes for them. The only problem with that is that it will not point out mistakes like "the" instead of "them" and will have the irritating habit of not recognizing other words.

Plus, like it was said before- its more about money now a days. Today it is generally assumed that Wotc will put out a 4.5 book because of mistakes- the sad part of that is that many people will pay for it. In other industries, if something was not built right the first time- the buyers are given the chance to exchange for the the new "fixed" version. I don't see Wotc doing this.. I wouldn't fit into their marketing plans (one of the many reasons i do not buy their crap).

Posted by: tete Aug 18 2008, 07:29 PM

I think thats because in the old days we expected the rules to be quirky and not make any sense.

Posted by: DocTaotsu Aug 18 2008, 11:19 PM

Wow... we are like >this< close to whining about how we gamed (and it was awesome) before it was mainstream.

I agree with the camp that says people demand an official answer while acknowledging that publishers have stepped up the release tempo. Quicker turn around on books is what most consumers scream for but it does mean more errors may be introduced.

I also think it's very easy to fantasize that "back in the day" it wasn't about the money. It's always been about the money, otherwise gaming would still be about a bunch of creepy guys with a photocopier (whereas now "indie" gaming is about a bunch of creepy people, lulu, or pdf releases). I think we as gamers, tend not to have an appreciation for what a monstrous undertaking getting a dead tree book costs, both in time and in money. At the end of the day the only reason D&D got past it's first edition was because a bunch of guys thought, "Holy crap, people actually care about this shit. We can make... A LIVING doing this." which is about the greatest thing any hobbyist can hope for.

I also agree with Tete, back in the day when we were rolling around with 2nd ed D&D and GURPS we kinda expected rule to be... arcane, and that we'd be spending sometime debating what they "really" meant. I've had more than one gamer reveal that he enjoyed debating the rules almost as much as he enjoyed playing (I'm not one of those gamers and it shows in how play hard and fast with rules).

Posted by: Rasumichin Aug 19 2008, 01:17 AM

The only bad thing i can say about edition changes is that besides them, there's very few change in the "mainstream" RPG sector.

In fact, i recently read that the best-selling RPG in this decade that wasn't a new edition of a previously existing game was Eden Studio's BtVS RPG.
That's kinda saddening.
Not because i dislike the BtVS RPG, it's really a great game, but because it shows how little success games outside of the niches carved out in the 80s and 90s tend to have.

There's nothing wrong with improving a tried-and-true system (i really appreciate the Pathfinder RPG, for that matter) or trying a new twist on an established design, as in SR4, but i'd love to see genuinely new products that shake up the market, add new ideas to our hobby and bring in new players from outside an established gamer scene.

Yeah, i know, there's all the indie stuff around and some of it works nicely, but somehow, those games tend to end up being played by a small subsection of people who already are into gaming, while new players still find their way into the hobby by picking up a copy of the current D&D or SR edition at their FLGS and not by downloading the rules for The Pool.

Posted by: DocTaotsu Aug 19 2008, 01:22 AM

I think that's just the nature of the beast. RPG's are something of an acquired taste and save for D&D they get very little real advertisement outside of gaming mags and what not. The only way a newbie is going to be exposed to RPG's are by running into a shiny copy of whatever mainstream game makes it way into their local Borders or what not.

Or by their crazy friend who promises them beer and food to come throw some dice with the group.

Either way, RPG aren't exactly getting out there and carving out huge numbers of players

Posted by: deek Aug 19 2008, 03:19 PM

Good points...part of me says, why not just go digital. Release PDFs as needed. Obviously, the first release would be buggy and there would probably be a lot of versions in the first couple of months, but then the core rules settle in and the product is pretty stable. Akin to alpha and beta stages in software.

Then, as someone pointed out, there needs to be a book on the shelf to appease to the non-hardcore gamer. That is the point where you actually do a printed run. Now granted, it may be 6-12 months before it was actually released, but you know what? Who cares? The hardcore gamers are going to have earlier looks and the mainstream wouldn't even be wary that there were PDFs early on.

Maybe you charge a fee to get the PDFs and updates until the print version is released. I bet a ton of us would buy into that to get playing on a new version, give feedback and help make the system better.

The devs would get a much larger base to playtest and get all that errata knocked out early...

I don't know, I honestly don't think print sales would go down that much had there been PDF beta copies floating around for several months before. I mean, most of us are going to by the "official" book when it comes out...

Posted by: Adam Aug 19 2008, 03:40 PM

deek, you may want to research what Paizo has been doing and is doing with Pathfinder, regarding the alpha/beta cycle of a game.

Posted by: deek Aug 19 2008, 04:36 PM

I'm just talking in general and using software release cycles as a model (as those are what I am most familiar with). Couple that with my love of linux and open-source software, the model seems to server some purposes quite well. Also, from what was posted elsewhere on this site (I think in the "Rant" thread), someone mentioned a life cycle from WotC.

My point being, they are all somewhat similar and have a proven track record. You plan a product then develop it. Then pilot it to a small group (alpha stage). Get the feedback and so forth. Then you can open it to a larger pilot group (beta stage) for more thorough testing. Now in the linux world, you start seeing RC (release candidates) which really are open to anyone that wants to download a copy and kick the wheels...

Now during all these stages, you have yet to print a single copy. PDF would be a good distribution model, as its quick and easy to update and set out on a server. I realize, in a perfect world, you have plenty of time to test, receive feedback, rinse and recycle...but we all have deadlines and if CGL is anything like our business model, well, that release date is a pretty big gorilla. And we are expected to go out with "something", even if flawed, else the release was a failure. Granted, our model allows for 4 releases a year, so our userbase knows that version 4 is only going to last a few months before version 5 comes out...

I'll take a look at what Paizo has been doing, but I wouldn't think I'll find too many surprises to their model. I mean, no matter what you call it, no matter what the product, this kind of life cycle is used...plan, develop, test, release, maintain...its just a matter of how much time you want to spend on each phase.

And as probably anyone will tell you, the maintenance phase is the most underrated one, yet most products spend the majority of their time in that phase...

Posted by: Rasumichin Aug 19 2008, 06:58 PM

Paizo took a well-known base product (D&D3.5), put up a modified PDF alpha version for free, including open discussion on their forums, then published a beta version recently (in print and as a free PDF) and will, after an open playtest that lasts one more year, print a "D&D 3.75" rulebook taking into account all the suggestions of the people who participated in the whole process.

The end result will probably be the most bug-fixed D&D ever.

I'd love to see that for SR4.5.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Aug 24 2008, 04:56 PM

My views on this hsould surprise no one but I think all too often it is used to revive coffers of the publishers rather than improve the game. forexample D&D and SR i don't think needed work overs. Earlier versions going from 1st to 2nd eds were needed to fix some problems with game play, but the only real change between SR 2 and 3 was a reworking of decking and since I didn't see 3rd ed as 'broken' the 4th ed seemed to be just an excuse to get people to shell out all over again for the core rule books like they did in earlier editions.

This has been done so often by gaming companies that I'm now suspicous of any new ed, is it needed or is it as money grab? all to often the answerris 'money grab.'

I mean some people really like 4th ed, good for them, but unlike the rigging rules for 2nd ed, no one was saying 3rd ed was broken, so why the need for a change? There is none, except to get gamers to buy all the core books, AGAIN!

the later ed's of D&D seem pretty much the same. no real need except the desire to trick people out of cash.

Posted by: Redjack Aug 24 2008, 07:55 PM

I represent the opposite view of that. To me sr3 rules were irrevocably broken and I had stopped playing. sr4 rules brought me back to the game and made me excited about it again. In fact, my buddy who had played since first edition with me had a long discussion with me about the rigger rules specifically the week before we tried sr4. Those rules along made me try sr4, the rest, including the matrix rules, really won me over.

I know there are a number of people who love the sr3 rules. God love 'em. If that's what you love, play it. sr4 doesn't invalidate those rules. It does give another option for playing the genre though.

Posted by: VagabondStar Aug 24 2008, 07:59 PM

Business Model.

Geek culture, and Gaming especially is a culture you have to buy your way into. Everyone needs to own a copy of the players handbook - per wizards of the coast in D&D 3 and 4. It's not just a suggestion to help things run smoothly, it's an implicit requirement: if you want you game- you have to buy our shit.

Ultimately, Catalyst is a business, and they want to make money. Hopefully they care about the game, and any changes they have made are in the spirit of improvement - but from a strictly financial sense, it's a great idea to completey rework the mechanic. Now those old books are all but unusable unless you want to take the time and effort to guess and work out conversions. Time to buy some new stuff.


I don't mean to sound like a hater, but I'm just pointing out what struck me

Posted by: deek Aug 25 2008, 03:25 PM

I really don't see how a new mechanic in a new edition completely invalidates a prior edition. I can choose to play whatever edition I want.

While I do believe that new editions are more a business decision to make more money than anything else, I do believe that many inside the company believe that each edition is an improvement and/or something they can put their name on and make it their own. No one goes to work in a creative company to just carry on what the status quo is...they want to create something new and bring it out to the masses...

And on a slightly smaller note, sometimes a new edition is put out to just say "hey, i'm new, try me. And I'm different than what you remembered me being a decade ago." We need that as well. I know that for me, when I was getting back into SR, 4th edition just came out and given the option to try and pick up a library of 3rd edition books or get one 4th edition book, the choice was simple...get the new one and play.

Posted by: Wesley Street Aug 25 2008, 04:51 PM

Ditto to that.

I don't view new editions of RPGs as an attempt by publishers to fleece players of their hard-earned cash. For better or worse I do genuinely believe publishers are trying to put out a better game. What I do take offense to, however, is a lack of support for conversion tables on behalf of publishers. And they're all guilty of it. While I love 4th ed. I think it would have been better received if FanPro or Catalyst had published an official conversions guide for vehicles, critters, and weapons. I know the game mechanics are different but bringing over monsters and gear from older editions could have been devised with a relatively simple formula. And I think Arsenal, etc. would still have sold the same numbers it had.

Posted by: nezumi Aug 25 2008, 06:36 PM

Hmm... I think I might be the only person so far who does NOT think every edition change is about finances.

WotC no question is about making a buck. They put out way more books than any person wants or needs, and updates editions way faster than seems reasonable. However, following Shadowrun for over 10 years, through three companies, I've been very impressed with how it's been handled, and definitely come away feeling like the devs have put out editions only when needed, and for clear reasons.

2nd edition came out because, as fun as it was, 1st edition was VERY broken. There's a reason 2nd/3rd edition players outnumber 1st edition players as heavily as they do, and most 1st edition games are heavily house-ruled.

3rd edition was, in a lot of ways, a series of errata to 2nd edition, but they were significant enough to be worth making into a second book, especially when tied into the metaplot changes. There was a lot of good material there, and it was definitely worth another $30. It's not like they were changes that only came up because no one had copy-edited the book initially, they're things that came up after years of hard play revealed that the high-initiative sammie pawned everyone, that grounding could be seriously abused, and that really, they can only cram so many adventures in 5 years of game time.

FASA and Fan Pro gave all of those editions a real good run too. They prolonged how long they went between editions as long as possible, it would seem. They put out new books every 1-6 months, which is a good pace for most players. I never saw a book come out where I thought 'how useless, they just want my cash'. Every product was well crafted, and I knew it would enhance my game.

4th edition is the most contested because it's the biggest change, but it did still allow the older editions. There are a few new powers, but they're fairly backward compatible, so I don't feel like I'm missing anything by not upgrading. At the same time, 4th edition opens the game up to a whole new demographic that apparently has been ignored. No one can deny 4th edition has gotten a lot of positive reviews by a lot of people who didn't feel comfortable with 3rd. I can't argue with that; while I myself prefer 3rd, it's pretty obvious 4th addressed some basic changes that needed to be made.

As a player, I can be happy playing any edition. I don't feel that any has something that you can't get in another edition. And even though they've discontinued 3rd edition, there are plenty enough good books available already out, and backward compatible books still coming out, I have plenty of stuff to spend my money on.

I'll be the first to admit, I don't think FanPro/Catalyst has a great business plan. If anything, it seems like a great way to get practically no pay for a TON of effort. But they've come out with a series of products that I for one love. I bought all of 3 books from WotC, I don't think I'll buy another. But I look forward to filling in my library more and more of Shadowrun products (as a note, please bring older books back into print!!)

Posted by: Adam Aug 25 2008, 07:46 PM

Interesting -- I didn't know that we sent our business plan out to random people...

Posted by: Naysayer Aug 25 2008, 07:53 PM

Well, this is a Shadowrun board, after all...

Posted by: deek Aug 25 2008, 08:29 PM

I will mention, that the SR universe does somewhat require additional books after a core ruleset. Unlike say, DnD, SR has a plot and timeline embedded into the game. Whereas, DnD, you really don't need any published setting to play in (granted, this may be because I've always ran my own or played in games that the DM created his own world).

SR could really get away with creating a set of core rules, tweak them later if needed (but almost never HAVE to redesign the whole mechanic) and focus on publishing books that add depth to different aspects of the game (magic, cyber/bio, matrix, etc) AND move the timeline along through sourcebooks.

I can handle 5-10 years between major version upgrades in my favorite RPG systems...get any more often than that and I start to feel taken advantage of...

Posted by: DocTaotsu Aug 26 2008, 01:28 AM

Given my very basic understanding of the dead tree printing industry I think CGL has a very solid business plan. Core rule books sell, everyone in a gaming group is likely to want one for their own (at least the gaming groups I've been in) expansion books are typically the purview of "That guy" who's interested in whatever specialty the book covers (Magic, tech, metaplot, etc). Releasing a supplement (beyond your SR triad of guns, magic, matrix) that everyone wants to buy is pretty rare. Erm... lets see if I can explain this better, and anyone who actually knows what they're talking about is welcome to correct me.

Book Publishing=
-Low profit margin
-Economy of scale
-Substantial capital investment

Therefore:
Generally speaking your best hope of recouping your capital is to print as many books as possible and sell every single book you print. The more books you print, the lower your costs, the higher the profit margin, and the more profit you turn (provided of course, you sell what you print). Grossly simplified of course (I'm not comfortable talking about the interplay between publishers and distributors).

So! You only want to print as many books as you can comfortably move and no more. Your profit comes from moving many many books so you want to pick books that have the largest appeal. Game publishers are already starting in a hole because they sell to a fairly niche market to begin with. So what books appeal to the broadest cross section of their audience? Core rule books. Every group needs at least one core book to play and most players will want one of their own provided they aren't broke. Supplements are a different beast though. Not everyone wants what a supplement has to offer, I for one don't dig dealing with the Matrix so getting Unwired isn't very high on my list. I do however love cyber and bio so I was all over Augmentations. I am a male between the ages of 5 and 80 so my natural fascination with guns meant that buying Arsenal was a must. I'm not a big fan of magic but it's pretty vital to the game so I have Street Magic on pdf. I'm ambivalent about metaplot so I never got the big plot heavy books like Emergence and what not (although I did gently nudge other players to buy them). I love setting books so if SoLA is ever released I'll be over it like white on rice.

What I'm trying to get at is that I have a purchasing profile. There are some supplements I'll buy and some I won't. Each of us has a profile and they're all different. Some people are still pissed off about Matrix 2.0 so they aren't likely to buy Unwired. Some think the metaplot is dumb so they won't be caught near a plot book. Etc etc. In the end the only book that appeals to everyone who wants to play Shadowrun is the core book. Pushing core books is a safe bet for moving large number of units while "Hyz's Guide to Fun At the Shapeshifter Bunraku Parlor" is not.

I'm also not entirely sure what a viable alternative plan would consist of. But than again, I'm just a dirty jarhead corpsman so it's unlikely that I'm qualified to make on


All that said, I would like to see more "beta testing" of products. Throw in 10 bucks (which of course grants you a discount on the finished product) and help CGL bug hunt products, ensuring the first printing doesn't come with 6 sheets of errata. The initial buy in will weed out of great number of the people who just want to whine and demonstrates a certain amount of investment by the players to tend their own garden. Having people pay YOU to proofread and playtest seems like a fairly straightforward deal and by restricting the playtest printings to pdf you'll ensure that most of us will still go out and buy the book when it first comes out. Hell, handle it properly and we'll look forward to doing it.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Aug 26 2008, 07:45 PM

The only house rule 1st edition D&D needed was that chopsticks should do 3d20 damage instead of 1d3 per attack.

Posted by: nezumi Aug 26 2008, 08:31 PM

To be fair, when you run a business whose primary source of income is selling stuff to the general public, whose publication dates are freely available, and who isn't intentionally hiding how successful those runs are, it isn't too very difficult to get a general gist of what the business plan was last year and, thereby, what you expect it to be this year.

The point is, SR has been very conservative about releasing new editions, and very charitable about not making it such that older players MUST update to the new version which, as a player, is greatly appreciated, even if it hits you guys in the pocketbook.

Posted by: Adam Aug 26 2008, 08:59 PM

Sure, but if you're looking at Catalyst's business model as "What they're doing and have done with Shadowrun," you're really only looking at part of the equation, especially with us now publishing CthulhuTech, releasing Eclipse Phase next year, Paparazzi! later this year, the resurgence of BattleTech, novel lines coming up, and more new games coming too ... we're well familiar with the damage that lack of diversity did to previous Shadowrun/BattleTech publishers.

Posted by: shadowfire Aug 26 2008, 09:03 PM

I think another thing that we are missing on this point is has to do with the American gaming culture or even just American culture in general. We like to find fault and complain about everything if its not personal perfect for each and everyone of us- everyday, every moment, and through every real life revealing emotion. We seek out the easy path but want the same fulfillments that the hard path would offer; we want the simplistic ease of the rules with the realistic feel to match the world as we and TV know it. i think that is part of the reason that Euro-rpgs don't get new editions as often as American run RPGs.
Plus, as a culture, we gamers (at all of us a course) have a problem of letting go of... well, i don't know what to call it. But many people in this country, for instance, play D&D still- no matter what edition- because it was the first (this is often a unconscious desirer). Where as in places like Germany they say, "hey this sucks", and play the Dark eye instead. I have no idea off hand what the japanese play instead or i would put that up as an example as well.

Posted by: DocTaotsu Aug 26 2008, 11:32 PM

As far as I can tell the Japanese don't actually uh... play tabletop RPG's. Which is a little unnerving. I'm sure there are people who play but the term RPG typically means JRPG, like Final Fantasy or what have you. The prospect of sitting around other nerdy folk and rolling dice for fun just doesn't have the same appeal I suppose.

Totally anecdotal but a number of my fellow gaming brethren have stated similar experiences on the mainland.

Posted by: shadowfire Aug 27 2008, 01:02 AM

What we call RPGs they call TRPG.

Sword World RPG
Star ocean has a TRPG
Glorious Saga Hero legend.
NIRVANA After Holocaust
Scrapped Princess RPG Fantasy

to name a few. i just don't know which is the big one. Theres just a very small amount of them that are translated outside of japanese from what i understand.

Posted by: Rasumichin Aug 27 2008, 01:15 AM

In fact, the popularity of The Dark Eye in Germany has the same reasons.
It might not be as old as D&D, the first edition having come out in 1984.
D&D's German translation came out at about the same time, but had worse distribution, as TDE was originally published by a joint-venture between the biggest German board game manufacturer and a book publisher.
Ironically, Ulrich Kiesow had written TDE mainly because his translation of D&D was turned down originally.
And to this day, it is as synonimous with RPGs here as D&D is in America, for exactly the same traditionalist reasons.
Non-gamers in Germany don't speak of RPGs, they say Das Schwarze Auge (The Dark Eye) when they refer to our hobby, as it completely dominates the market and always has.

D&D has always been the second-most popular RPG here at best.
In fact, it might even have been number three during the 90s, with TDE and SR claiming the first two places.

Posted by: DocTaotsu Aug 27 2008, 01:41 AM

Go SR!

Does The Dark Eye have a set metaplot and setting? In my mind that's D&D's weakest element, their stock setting is pretty goddamn lame when held up against virtually any other setting.

I can't help but think of D&D as more of an operating system for gaming rather than a real game

Posted by: Rasumichin Aug 27 2008, 02:39 AM

It has suffered a lot due to the edition change and even more so the fact that FanPro collapsed and we haven't had a German publisher until last Tuesday, but i hope it will be recovering now.



TDE is all about setting and metaplot.
It is set mostly on very small, plain-vanilla fantasy continent, Aventuria, that is described in excruciating detail and has a very prominent metaplot, including a bi-monthly magazine that is written in an ingame perspective mostly and a whole bunch of campaigns dealing with events from world-shaking invasions by demigod mages to political intrigue in renaissance city states.
Supplements are full of inuendo to the ingame mythology and history and ingame texts that put great strain on creating a unique, pseudo-medieval, but decidedly non-earthly idiom.
In fact, TDE setting is a science in itself, even more so than with other RPGs.
There's players who will imediately recognize that a star constellation has changed when you show them a map of the TDE nightsky and who can name the ancestors of every nobleman in the game world.
When the current edition's run of setting description sourcebooks is complete, it will contain 13 all-fluff hardcovers with over 200 pages each- for a continent that is smaller than Western Europe.

And that's just one of the 4 continents, although many players despise Myranor (the other previously described continent, an antiquity-meets arcanopunk-furries-setting) with a fervor that makes the most bitter anti-Eberron rethoric look tame.
I haven't taken a closer look at it yet, but it seems interesting, especially as it is much more open than Aventuria.

There's also a campaign for the exploration of Uthuria, the third continent, in the making and a fan project for the 4th continent Riesland, which is deliberately left undescribed.

All in all, great fluff, although it is hard for newcomers to get through the multitudes of setting material and many fans are rabidly opposing anything that does not fit into their view of the setting, accusing slightly innovative characters of being "unaventurian".

Many of the older campaign modules have a strong focus on railroading, pet NSC and sightseeing, too, combined with an almost paranoid fear of powergamers (and broken rules...).
TDE gamer culture has a strong emphasis on GM omnipotence and handwaving in many groups (unless they have also played a lot of SR or D&D).
There's also a strong focus on social interaction instead of combat and...well, a love for details that can lead to groups spending 10 hours sitting in a tavern and having ingame conversations in the Aventurian version of renfair dialect...


The rules system started out as a usual early 80s attempt to make a slightly more realistic D&D, with active parry and damage-absorbing armor instead of AC and a magic system using astral points instead of Vancian memorization (it also had no clerics originally- oh, and all elfs are casters).
In second edition, it acquired an elaborate, albeit clumsy skill system that has in the meantime grown to absurd proportions, with seperate skills for heraldry, pottery, farming- and about 30 different combat skills in the current 4th edition.

It used to be a very simple class system (with elfs and dwarves as the only nonhumans, who where treated as seperate classes in the first three editions), many hardcore gamers in fact looked down upon it as "that newbie RPG", but has now switched to extremely rules-heavy and GURPS-style point buy, with a combination of race, culture and profession as the core of chargen (and several non-human PC races made available, though not nearly as many as D&D).
There's also cultural variants, in some regions for every major city or every existing ork tribe- as i said, rules-heavy.

The current combat system attempts to be hyperrealistic and has included several feat trees now, for two-handed fighting, dual wielding, dual wielding with parry weapons and shields, martial arts and whatnot.
Magic is very rich in fluff for all traditions, especially hermetic mages.
It is also extremely complex (who would have thought?), with several hundred spells that can be modified on the fly and rules for summoning demons that are so detailed they give you modifiers for wearing the wrong kind of shoes (i'm not making this up, seriously!).
Summoning elementals is so complicated that nine out of ten groups wouldn't know how to do it correctly and handwave it (like decking, but worse).
Divine "magic" is a subsystem with completely different (and similarly elaborate) rules and some players will lynch you if you call liturgies magic...

All in all, the full ruleset has about 1500 pages and groups who do not use the much lighter basic rules (who are actually workable and less complex than SR and include a brief introduction to the setting, but are sadly out of print in English) either are the greatest rules lawyers imaginable, use only half of the rules or just handwave everything (and some of the campaign authors used to fall in the latter category, unfortunately).


All in all, i do have a lot of troubles with TDE4, which i gave up playing some years ago, but if i feel nostalgic, i still love to pick up my first edition books.
And the setting...well, it just feels like home.

I'd recommend picking up the TDE4 basic rules (or if you're into old school, the first edition) to give it a try if you find them in a used bookstore or on ebay, but the greatest strenght of the system, the rich setting material, has never been translated, so it would rather be a brief hint at what TDE is about.

Well, so much for German RPGing for tonight.

Posted by: DocTaotsu Aug 27 2008, 02:46 AM

God... that sounds like tabletop SCA madness

But yeah, it sounds like setting is what a solid long lived RPG is set upon.

Setting or brand recognition D&D keeps chugging besides having some of the most forgettable setting ever devised. Forgotten Realms? Eberron? Greyhawks really the only setting I've ever enjoyed and I really have idea what the specifics are besides it's really easy to die and lycanthropes roam the streets.

That's just me of course.

Posted by: shadowfire Aug 27 2008, 06:44 AM

aberron is kool; its to bad it wasted on D&D setting.

Ya, i heard they were printing a english copy of TDE and want one just for all of that juicy goodness that comes with and that it suppose to be a really good system.

Posted by: Fuchs Aug 27 2008, 12:08 PM

One session of DSA was enough for me to drop it.

Posted by: Rasumichin Aug 27 2008, 07:07 PM

Well, i really enjoyed Dark Sun and Planescape.
Actually, they where the reason why i picked up AD&D2 in the first place.
I never played in Greyhawk, Krynn or the Forgotten Realms (although i've read several of the novels set in the latter two as a kid) and must admit that i have no desire to do so.
Eberron sounds moderately interesting, but somehow, the material i have looked at this far didn't quite convince me.

I might check out the Pathfinder setting and probably also Iron Kingdoms, though.
I'm sticking with 3.75e anyway, it looks like what i would have wanted 4e to be.

However, they're relatively low on my list of future RPG acquisitions.
Have to get myself the "new" edition of CP2020 and maybe Cthulhutech first.


@ Fuchs : was it the GM, the skill checks or the combat system?

Posted by: deek Aug 27 2008, 07:42 PM

Dark Sun was pretty cool, although I had a DM that ruined the setting for me. Ravenloft started out pretty cool, but a different GM ruined that for me.

Personally, I loved FR. Granted, I logged most of my days playing in AD&D FR Boxed Set. Before I read any of the novels that had a bunch of crazy stuff go on. Honestly, before FR hit 2nd edition, the setting was pretty much what I would want in a fantasy medieval setting...and I still think of it that way.

Never got into Greyhawk (except for running Temple of Elemental Evil) nor Dragonlance (although I had a lot of friends that played that).

And maybe that's part of the newer culture, games have to come packaged with setting/fluff. I prefer creating all that myself...

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Aug 27 2008, 10:15 PM

I thought that Record of Lodoss War was basically the anime/manga version of some Japanese dude's actual D&D 1st ed campaign.

From wikipedia:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_of_lodoss_war

Posted by: DocTaotsu Aug 27 2008, 11:00 PM

Like I said, it's anecdotal. We've gamed amongst Japanese national before and we've done a fair amount of asking around in the local population. I also have a friend who taught on the mainland and she relayed that she'd never heard nor seen anyone throwdown on some d20's or otherwise. Everyone we've talked to was more than a little confused by what we were doing (I think the phrase "So... you eventually play this on the PS2/PC eventually right?" came up a few times). Eh... but like I said, it's hardly a scientific process. It just strikes me the pen and paper RPG's are a very very niche market out here.



@deek= I've heard really good things about Pathfinder and I'll probably look it up when my fantasy fix needs fixing

I enjoy coming up with my own worlds and what not but all that takes time to do properly. I also think that it's easier to sell a story, an idea, than it is to sell a system: "Ork's with assault rifles!" vs. "We roll lots of d6's for task resolution!"

I've never played a by the book D&D game until recently. Even at 10 we thought the gods were kinda boring and the settings... pretty generic. Besides! We wanted airships and minotaur heros and... you get the idea.

Posted by: Wesley Street Aug 28 2008, 01:32 AM

Dark Sun was probably the most creative and original D&D setting ever devised. The subsequent and more generic settings, a la Ravenloft (Gothic Europe) and Al-Qadim (Persia/Arabia), were endemic of TSR attempting to pump the market for more cash.

I'm sorry you had bad GMs though. I've learned to detach to survive when necessary.

Posted by: De Badd Ass Aug 28 2008, 12:33 PM

Shadowrun is different than DnD in that Shadowrun has an advancing timeline in the future, while DnD has a static timeline in the past. Shadowrun has to keep advancing, because the original events occur less than five years from now. When Shadowrun came out, cell phones where not popular, Windows was not popular, the Internet was not popular. There have been similar advances in all fields of technology: armor, medicine, vehicles, weapons, etc.

The thing I didn't like about Shadowrun 2nd edition, is that a rule was never explained in ONE book. In order to understand anything, I had to jump back and forth between two, three, or more books. I saw this as a their way of selling more books.

The problems compounded in Shadowrun 3rd edition. They changed basic rules, while delaying the release of advanced rules. All the cool stuff from the earlier editions was lost until MITS, Rigger 3, Cannon Companion - which weren't released in a timely fashion. Plus, there wasn't enough NEW stuff in these books. Magic, especially, didn't advance much, compared to Cyber and the Matrix.

Shadowrun 4 simplifies the game mechanics - tremendously. The tech stuff keeps advancing; magic not so much. I imagine that sooner or later, Magic will penetrate the Matrix; maybe that will be 5th edition. Otherwise, Shadowrun Magic will stagnate and die.

Posted by: Wesley Street Aug 28 2008, 02:43 PM

If you look at the timeline presented in 1st ed. or on the Sixth World Wiki, a lot of dates have already passed:


New York City, Libya, Israel, Japan, Korea and the UK are screwed!

Posted by: Hatspur Sep 3 2008, 04:02 PM

I don't think the gamer market works exactly like the businesses want it to. Some of us who spent half a fortune on D20 books were really looking forward to 4th for a completely different reason, many Used Book sellers will look at d20 as dead product and sell it at massively reduced prices. Which is EXACTLY what happened in my town. Old editions of gamiing books go for reduced prices almost the world over, I tried to exlain this to the local gaming store owner and he thought it was a silly idea. But he also lost out on lots of my money when I went down the street to a local bookseller and bought 10 old d20 books for $100.

I look at different systems as different Operating systems for a computer. Shadowrun can do things D20 and GURPS are completely incapable of. GURPS reminds me a lot of Linux, there's usually one gamer in the group who views it as the best damn thing in the world capable of doing almost anything, but it completely lacks flavor and appeal. D20, with a little bit of tweaking is a alot like Windows XP or 2000, lots of fun cinematic hours of gaming. Then there's WoW...I mean D&D 4th, that is obviously geared toward the power gamer who wants his roleplaying game to be much more like a video game where the ONLY encouraged off board character interaction is snarky comments and "lulz." I think D&D 4th and Windows Vista have a lot in common in that I will probably never have a good enough reason to convert to either.

Mind you, I kind of have a unique situation where my entire group agreed that D&D 4th was a waste of time and money especially now that all the old books became cheaper. If you don't like what the businesses are doing to your game, don't let it stand. We are all the masters of our own groups and we can make the choices not to do what Wotc or whoever wants us to do.

Posted by: shadowfire Sep 3 2008, 05:47 PM

i would have to say that my group was off almost the same option as far as 4th edition.
We heard about the that they had planed to do with it before it was released and thought, "i hope this kills off D&D", then we read the core books when they came out and said-" wow theres like two rules in the whole game that are anything near good- the rest is crap". Mind you we didn't think we were going to drop everything to play the new D&D anyway so it was no big deal. There is much better games out there that have more to them and that don't act like crappy video games.

Posted by: Reg06 Sep 4 2008, 03:51 AM

Even if anything you said held any water, it's not like Final Fantasy ever borrowed anything from D&D. Which is good, because about the worst crime I can imagine is one form of media borrowing good ideas from another.

Posted by: shadowfire Sep 4 2008, 05:12 AM

lol

Wow your a clever one. I hope you didn't get that GED out of a cracker jack box. Yes, Final fantasy and D&D are high fantasy styled games/settings, and thats where the comparison ends. D&D has nothing on final fantasy and final fantasy has everything that D&D does not; i highly doubt that the makers of the first Final fantasy borrowed anything from D&D and would ever do so. I believe that were more inspired by great Victorian fantasy authors and Japanese mythology than a dungeon crawling hack and slash game. I believe that you forgot that final fantasy has one thing D&D never has had- story/plot and internal character development, much like a good fantasy novel.

Posted by: Reg06 Sep 4 2008, 05:31 AM

Exactly, attack my intelligence rather than my argument (though admittedly you did you both, so well done).
As to the actual point, Final Fantasy has roots in D&D. The original Final Fantasy had very classic D&D monsters, but I being as how I've only played X I won't dig into the others. I fail to see how a turn based RPG made 12 years after D&D about a hero who must journey into the lair of a dragon to restore peace to the land can't be said to have borrowed from D&D (the game would be Dragon Quest, the game Final Fantasy was based on). Sure it's possible that a decade later a video game with almost the same premise (and the same gameplay) as D&D would not have roots in D&D, but unlikely.
Calling something shit because it borrows from another form of media is fairly silly. Despite the fact that the Metal Gear series has ridiculously long cut scenes doesn't stop it from being one of the best and most popular video games series on the planet.

No. You are quit simply wrong. That is the entire point of D&D- to create those things.

Posted by: Redjack Sep 4 2008, 07:16 AM

Knock it off, reread the Terms of Service (linked in upper left corner of every page) and play nicely.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Sep 4 2008, 05:38 PM

Exactly! It's not the ridiculously long cut scenes, it's the atrocious gameplay and ludicrous story.

Posted by: Reg06 Sep 4 2008, 07:35 PM

Don't get me wrong, I don't enjoy the games (after MGS I lost interest, for all of the reasons stated). However, the creator saw how well movies tell stories, and brought that into his gameplay, and it has worked out very well for him.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Sep 4 2008, 08:47 PM

They both have hitpoints, dungeon crawls centered around the idea of hidden treasure and random and planned encounters, and they both have the tendency to classify characters along the lines of theif/fighter/magic user/cleric etc.

Posted by: Rasumichin Sep 4 2008, 11:33 PM

D&D4, like any tabletop RPG, may very well provide more story and character development than FF ever could.

Final Fantasy just railroads you from cut scene to cut scene, with tons of turn-based combat inbetween (and i fully second that mechanically, it is often strikingly similar- but that may be due to the fact that most computer and video RPGs are strongly D&D-oriented, if not outright knockoffs or even tie-ins- the whole genre wouldn't be imaginable without D&D).

D&D, even in 4th ed, at least offers the chance to actually tell a story instead of merely being presented a story by someone else.

Even if the rules revolve almost exclusively around combat (which mainstream RPGs' rules set is not combat heavy, BTW?) it does at least enable you to also be creative on your own outside of twinking your character.
I don't see that in any part of FF.
This does not mean i dislike the FF series (except for part VIII with its tedious combat system), but it will not provide what i get when playing even the most hack&slashish D&D campaign, while D&D provides all a computer RPG minus the graphic engine has to offer.

Which does not mean i'll switch over to D&D4, i've just gotten halfway used to 3.5 and will stick with Pathfinder and used 3x material if i want to run a D&D campaign.

Posted by: Reg06 Sep 5 2008, 02:59 AM

I've thought up cooler monsters than FF has ever shown.


And I don't really care. Nobody has to switch over to a new game. But when you start talking shit about a game, and refuse to play it because it is new, that is a problem. As part of the "New Edition" gaming generation I've grown up gaming with all the elements that 4e has drawn from, and it is the nearly the perfect game for me because it includes everything I enjoy. I grew up when computer and video games were are fact of life, and so I love to see that on the tabletop. I've always had miniatures infinitely accessible thanks to a healthy industry and the internet, so I love to to have that in my RGPs. I grew up with Magic, and Pokemon ruled my playground, so any card game features (and so far I see none in 4e) are familiar to me.

The "New Edition" gaming culture is important because older games (and I'll keep the D&D theme here because it is easy), like AD&D, have nothing to give me. Sure it is an RPG, but it comes from the cheesy fantasy of the 80's, I'm not a fan of that- my generation's fantasy is Diablo, and The Song of Ice and Fire. All the players of AD&D are not part of my generation- I'd be the baby at the table, and we all know gamers love to play the knowledgeable elder (often to the point of annoyance). Without new editions that the new gamers can relate to and find enticing, the hobby would die.

Posted by: Rasumichin Sep 5 2008, 03:45 AM

Does that include Ultros?

I mostly agree on the rest though, even though i grew up on He-Man and Transformers instead of Magic and Pôkemon (and wouldn't want to change that, even though it would make me ten years younger) and treasure my old Planes Of Chaos box set, my gonzo first ed TDE adventures, the Runequest 2 creatures book and Shadowbeat.

Do we need GitS influences in SR to keep the game alive?
Well, probably yes.
And i don't mind playing in a campaign with cyborgs, technomancers and furries instead of poodle-haired elven deckers.
As long as there's enough mohawks, of course.

Posted by: Blade Sep 5 2008, 07:56 AM

Dying Earth RPG. There are combat rules, but they have the same complexity as social rules and they are used a lot less. If you get in a combat situation it means that something has gone very bad. Combat is dangerous and most of the time there are safer ways around (such as running away, persuading the monster that you're not that good to eat or settling that matter with a card game), so why bother fighting?
But Dying Earth might not be a "mainstream RPG".

Posted by: Fuchs Sep 5 2008, 08:46 AM

The Ghost in the Shell comic started in 1991 - in the time of SR1. It's not exactly "new edition", in my opinion.

Posted by: Reg06 Sep 5 2008, 06:51 PM

The Ghost in the Shell came out at a time that meant once all those kids who had grown up with that (we start watching TV younger than we do roleplaying) come into the age to start roleplaying right about when SR4 came out. So one could argue GitS is a New Edition thing (not that gamers of the old school can't enjoy it).

Posted by: DocTaotsu Sep 8 2008, 11:54 AM

GitS, especially the TV show is definitely new edition. AR, cyber brains, e-ghosts etc. Hell there are more than a few threads with people using 4th edition to put together all the cool crap from that show that wasn't fully imagined in previous editions.

Posted by: Nkari Sep 10 2008, 12:42 PM

SR4 is vastly more appealing to me than SR3 ever was, its better steamlined, etc etc.. so all in all it was a good "new" edition..

Now we take white wolfs World of Darkness (Im putting all their games into the WoD.. since they all interact more or less) Their WoD 1.0 I LOVED, I bought most stuff that had vampire written on it =) Then when WoD 2.0 came out, they scrapped the whole meta plot and began a new.. BLAND meta plot, and rewrote the rules, and not testing them properly (to many inconsitencys imho) so I stopped giving white wolf my money..

Then we have a swedish "realistic" fantasy RPG called EON, its on its 3rd generation atm, but the company is small and soley employ freelance writers, so the release rate of new books isnt that fast.. What they do instead is that they revisit the main rules every few years, but all the sourcebooks etc from the previous editions are still compatible with the new editions, they do minor tweaks here and there, fix typos, fix broken rules, steamline the stuff that takes to long, alot of stuff.. and it WORKS.. there is little or no power creep, there are very very few instances where older stuff is not compatible with new stuff since the addon books does not add new rules most of the time, its mearly settings, histocical information, and some adventures. And the world is fairly consistant, tho they need to revisit the geographica mundana and fix the population numbers, standing army numbers because generally the population is WAY to low for a country that size, and the army is generally WAY to big for a country of that size or even larger when you look at them in a histocial context..

Posted by: Reg06 Sep 10 2008, 08:05 PM

That's funny. I loved WoD 1.0, and I had a bunch of books. And then NWoD came out, and I love every single thing about it. The rules are more streamlined and easy, and the game itself is the horror game old WoD wished it could have been- new Werewolf is actually scarey. Where you see the meta-plot as bland, I see it as far less restrictive (Argh! I'm a werewolf, all vampires are of the wyrm! Rargh! Kill all vampires no matter what, no questions asked!), far more interesting (again, the vampire sects are what the Camarilla and Sabbat should have looked like if they had been written with any talent), and it has many more possibilities (plus, Prometheus is awesome).

Posted by: shadowfire Sep 10 2008, 10:09 PM

I liked the old Changeling a lot better. It was the happiest place in the world of darkness. The new ones just all about being sad and an outcast.

Posted by: Reg06 Sep 10 2008, 10:15 PM

I'll admit I haven't seen the new Changeling, but I heard it was basically Neil Gaiman: The Roleplaying Game (or more to the point, that's what I wanted), which is fairly awesome.

Posted by: DocTaotsu Sep 10 2008, 11:05 PM

"Neil Gaiman: The Roleplaying Game" was sadly banned in this country because the vast quantities of hallucinagenic drugs that came with it are illegal here.

Posted by: hobgoblin Sep 11 2008, 10:24 PM

a couple of comments here.

i find that cpv3 stands on its own ok, but when viewed as a continuation of cp2020, its somewhat over the top...

the living city that sprawls most of california intrigues me. same with the fraction and their differing approach to tech (even tho i have a hard time wrapping my head around the social structures of some of them. but most seem to have a core of good old fashion honor).

the initial final fantasy games on NES had a very similar spell mechanic to d&d. you had different level spells, and could cast a number of spells pr level before having to rest (more like the d&d3 sorceror then the classical wizard, tho).

beyond that i seem to never really care if a system changes. im kinda "funny" that way. each editions system gets to stand on its own feet.

but i agree that d&d4 looks more like a mmorpg in paper form then the toyboxes that have been, to me at least, a trait that differs paper rpgs from just about any other kind of game.

Posted by: Wesley Street Sep 15 2008, 05:07 PM

Having played a couple of sessions of D&D4E and reading interviews with the Wizards of the Coast developers, 4th edition was specially designed to incorporate miniatures into the game play. I don't think it's fair to compare 4th Ed. to MMORPGs (as five or six people sitting around a table rolling dice isn't exactly massive) but RPGs that incorporate visual imagery into the game (be that through physical models, simple computer generated maps, etc.) is the future of non-LARP RPGs. The line between tabletop and pure RP games is becoming ever blurrier.

What's the easiest way to get people who like Hero Clix or Star Wars minis into D&D? Incorporate the Hero Clix into D&D. And, honestly, as a GM, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Letting the minis keep track of player positions and objects and focusing more on story and other elements makes for a more enjoyable gaming experience for me. I have a powerful imagination but I also like having something tangible to touch and "act" with to keep all the players on the same page.

Posted by: shadowfire Sep 16 2008, 03:56 PM

I don't think its the inclusion of minis that is the reason why D&D4th is being called a Table top MMO. In fact, 3rd edition was designed with chainmail in mind. Many games out there have some design element in them where the use of minis make combat situations more easy to show movement and tactics, as well as in game effects.

Posted by: Wesley Street Sep 16 2008, 05:56 PM

Using "squares" instead of "feet" for movement doesn't make a game any more tabletop.

In those two or three preview publications that came out before D&D 4th ed.'s release, the lead developer was quoted as saying the game mechanics were being specifically redesigned for the inclusion of minis.

Posted by: Sweaty Hippo Sep 16 2008, 08:22 PM

Depends on the RPG system. But all RPGs have some form of loophole/flaw that people who are very dedicated/obsessed with the game can easily find. And even small problems can be blown out of proportion.

Posted by: hobgoblin Sep 18 2008, 02:44 AM

i see the mmo aspect in the use of class specific powers, much like how you have a set of special attacks on the bar at the edge of the screen while playing a mmo. that and nearly all powers having a damage or healing effect, with secondary effects.

they basically tossed most of the utility/non-combat spells from earlier editions, for one thing...

Posted by: Reg06 Sep 18 2008, 07:42 PM

As opposed to how in 3.5 classes didn't have specific powers like Heal Minor Wounds, or Cleave.


To save for the book where they matter. Most people don't need utility spells for their epic wizards who forge deep into dungeons in order to slay mythical and terrible beasts. However, some want them. They are an extra, and I shouldn't have to pay the page space for them.

Posted by: nezumi Sep 18 2008, 08:18 PM

That's interesting, I found that most players don't need dozens of variations on the same theme of 'hurt things' or 'heal things', but benefit significantly from a wide variety of unusual abilities while role-playing, exploring or interacting within a massive fantasy world.

Posted by: Wesley Street Sep 18 2008, 08:21 PM

I find the opposite. It's Dungeons and Dragons, not Craftmaking and Peasantry. D&D is the go-to game if you want fantasy sword-n-sorcery action. However... http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/217897200 is releasing in November. According to an interview on The Tome podcast, Arcane Power is coming up soon. All the utility/non-combat powers that were tossed from 3.5 will be included in those products. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/217837200 should be out now or soon which is the master equipment guidebook. And though I play in the Eberron campaign setting, the http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/218587200 is mighty tempting.

Posted by: deek Sep 18 2008, 08:30 PM

I'd have to agree...while having a secondary craft is fun here and there, as well as adding a little bit to your background, the meat of DnD is the sword and sorcery. Granted, it does depend on your group...mine for instance, is a bunch of late 20s, early 30s, getting together after work once every other week. We could care less about someone's pottery skill or if they know how to blacksmith a sword...we want to hangout, roll some dice, bash the monsters, get loot and level...all while filling in the gaps of stuff that's been going on with each of us.

Keeping that stuff modular and in different books is better, cause if we don't care about that stuff, we haven't paid for a bunch of pages that we'd never even read.

Posted by: Reg06 Sep 18 2008, 09:31 PM

And from everything I gather (I haven't actually played pre 3rd ed), AD&D and 1st ed were even more about just killing things for loot and XP, making the 4e feel more akin to original D&D. Not that I'm trying to make this an edition war, just that it seems to me WotC attempted (and succeeded) to make a game that harkens back to the old days of D&D while making it accessible and engaging to new gamers.

Posted by: deek Sep 19 2008, 01:22 PM

If you want more crafting and character development, then ren fairs and LARPing may be a better fit... That's usually what my thoughts boil down to. I mean, yeah, sometimes I can understand wanting to have a character be "different" than the 1,000 other characters you had, but really, are you really going to get along with your group if you are always monopolizing the GMs time because you want to craft something or make some money performing in town square?

I think that is fine if you do it outside the game, like on a forum or whatever, but to force that down everyone's throat? I'll pass.

Interesting observation, Reg06...granted, I still think WotC planned to mimic the popular trends in MMOs and focused on seriously differentiating class roles while maintaining balance throughout every aspect of the game. I think the fact that the core books focus mainly on the combat rules is just a side effect.

Posted by: shadowfire Sep 19 2008, 02:53 PM

I guess that depends on the Gm's style. If the GM is the type to stretch that sort of thing out and have you role play the whole thing then yes that is unfair to the other players. However, if its justt he roll of the dice and then back to the rest of you while the bard is in the square singing, then its no big deal.
For instance. My monday GM allows us magic users to learn spells by studying books at the mage's guild- for a price. The amount of roleplaying is usually me asking a NPC member of the guild if they have the book i a looking for and how much, plus whatever else we might say to each other. After that the character sits in a chair to read and i roll some dice to see how well i do. If i roll well enough i get news spells; if i don't roll well then i wasted my time. Either way My character will be sitting there for most of the day and the GM moves on to the other characters. So really i am not taking up anyones "GM" time. If you can't enjoy the game in all situations then you should reevaluate the reason why you play at all.

Posted by: Reg06 Sep 19 2008, 07:41 PM

I completely agree with this. And I think it is a good thing. There's a reason WoW has 10 million players, and some of their ideas must be some very good ones.


So since I am not entertainted when my character who I just spent 10 straight months working on fumbles and falls to his death crossing a rickety bridge in a non-combat situation I should play better or not at all? No. I don't have to enjoy spending time whittling a rose out of wood when I could be doing something awesome, like sliding down a bannister on a shield while cutting down droves of orcs with my +3 flaming broadsword.
By your own admission crafting doesn't need to take up time, so why waste page space with something that is just tiny sliver of gametime? Not that your playstyle is wrong, but 4e has (briefly) covered background skills like that, and they aren't supposed to take up character points. I'm sure we will get crafting skills and the like in the near future, but a basic roleplaying game for dungeon delving and monster slaying does not need rules for stitching your own armor.

Posted by: nezumi Sep 19 2008, 07:58 PM

I didn't say anything about crafting or character development. I said 'role-playing', which is a pretty broad brush. For instance, I far prefer exploration and social interactions over combat, neither of which are either crafting or character development. I enjoy puzzle solving. That's why I thought Planescape Torment and Baldur's Gate were both fantastic games, even though they're both technically D&D. I'm going to assume you're unfamiliar with this concept, and not just a rude person.

Posted by: shadowfire Sep 19 2008, 09:08 PM

YEs, if fumbling causes you to stop having fun then Yes you should reevaluate why you play.

I will point out that by your own omission the the reason why you play is less about the roll playing and more about the Slaying of "Orcs" hense why such character flavor as crafting skills are not important. Which is also why WOW (or MMOs in general) work really well, because thats what most non-rpers are interested in doing.

Posted by: Reg06 Sep 19 2008, 09:09 PM

And you shouldn't need rules for exploration and social interactions. Exploration is covered very well by the Spot and Knowledge skills, and by your GM's ability to describe thing (player curiosity is also important). And social interaction should not need dice. If you want to talk to an NPC, do so. We need extensive rules for combat because it is dynamic, uncontrollable, and most importantly, we can't do it ourselves sitting around a table. Social interaction is one of the very few in game things we can do as players at the table. 4e gave us the basics of what we need to play, if for some strange reason you can't talk without using stats and dice that is not the game's fault.

No. I don't cry every time I get a bad roll. However it cannot be 100% fun 100% of the time, there are bound to be things that I don't like that much. Like losing 10 months of work to a sheer dumb luck (not that this actually happened, it's just a hypothetical situation). But I continue playing because RPing is loads of fun, even if (or maybe sometimes because) things go poorly.


Do you in fact mean "roll" playing? Because that part doesn't concern me, I have Warhammer to satisfy my number crunching needs. But yes, I'd rather go out as a swashbuckling warrior and gut me some orcs than sit around the campfire making arrows. Maybe the part where I fail is not understanding why the Dread Pirate Roberts has any less character flavor or role playing potential than that guy from that one movie who makes shit (hint; the Dread Pirate Roberts is actually an interesting character).

Posted by: shadowfire Sep 20 2008, 12:42 AM

I'm pretty sure that the dread pirate Roberts could do many "Craft"or "roleplaying" based skills (if he was a character)
He would have to since he was a Captain of a ship- so he would of had to learn basic ship maintenance, plus things to keep the ship floating and heading on the correct course. Sure you tend to hire people to do these things but what happens if they die or are sick? Your screwed then.

Fun is fun, it doesn't usually get broken down into a percentage like a misused RPG stat. Its either fun or not. Stop being a stickler. If you lose your fun because of fumbles and such then you should play a diceless game, of which there are a few really good ones; unless you one of those," Oh, i can't do that cause i have all these dice- cookie jars full of them, that i cannot do without".

I do agree that character interaction is up to the players and GM. However, even if there are not rules for said interaction there should be a reward for doing so than anything that the player would personally take away from it. 4e has NO reward system (xp) for this type of situation. And yes i have read the whole core book. They have a non-combat xp reward system but from what i read its not a roleplaying character interaction through words based xp, but more of an physical action based reward system. Like using a skill that has nothing to do with combat- like pick locks. But then again thats only a fraction of whats wrong with the system.

Posted by: Reg06 Sep 20 2008, 04:23 AM

Yes, but the point is he didn't. Those skills are all background skills (and I don't mean they are part of his backstory, I mean they happen off screen) and had no effect on the storyline, whatsoever. And the character is no less dynamic, interesting, or characterful (that's where I ran out of words) for it.


Did you even listen to what I said? The dice rolls aren't important. What is important is losing a character that I've invested alot of time and effort in, that is not fun no matter which way you spin it. And to try to steer this away from a flame war (and don't get me wrong, I actually had to proofread this post because I knew I was close to it), I own the one fist sized bag of dice. If it helps, my first systems were White Wolf games, so non-combat skills are dear to my heart, and background attributes are second nature (but I don't look for that in a game whose reward system is based on killing things).


This I will let you have, for the most part. There is brief mention of giving rewards such as deeds and nobility to players, things that can't be measure in XP or gold, and it alludes to the fact that good RP is worth rewarding, but it is very brief (to be fair, this is D&D, where pretty much the only way to become anything is to kill alot of stuff). But what you said here is fine, I don't mind one bit if you hate on the game because it's play style doesn't fit yours. I only mind if you complain that it isn't something it isn't.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Sep 20 2008, 05:29 PM

*raises hand*

I like logistics in my games.

That's why I was completely pumped and spent many hours playing http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/wilderness-a-survival-adventure

According to MobyGames,

Posted by: deek Sep 22 2008, 03:26 PM

First off, I wasn't directing my post at anyone in particular...

But I think you hold my point pretty well in your own preferences. Social interactions, can all be made by a good GM. You don't need dice to tell you that, or a bunch of tables or rules. Although in DnD, you could set up non-combat encounters if you need to. And puzzle solving...again, is just a good GM giving you a good obstacle to spend your time on.

I must just be rude then, as I'm not unfamiliar with these concepts.

Posted by: nezumi Sep 22 2008, 08:12 PM

I think at this point you're ignoring things to make your point. This addresses deek as well, although less so.

Firstly, both of you have stated it should all be handled diceless, and can be done by a good GM.

On the one hand, diceless means that the GM basically has to handle a lot more, and oftentimes results in something similar to what you get when you do diceless combat; the players don't like the result and claim it's unfair. Social interactions are every bit as complex and dynamic as combat, perhaps even moreso because there is so much more background involved. And because not every GM is good, and not every player is well-spoken, being able to turn that into something more abstract is a very useful tool. Exploration falls into a similar vein. A city cannot be summed up into a series of Spot and knowledge skills, or if it can, it's not a very convincing city (or it's an absolutely FANTASTIC GM). We buy sourcebooks to help us design and populate our cities, to put traps and culture into it, plot hooks and schemes. Part of why I love Shadowrun is because I feel like I really know Seattle. Reading the books, I can imagine it and understand it. Even as a bad GM, I can portray a convincing city, with realistic characters and proper reactions, because of what the Shadowrun system provides (and in truth, I rely far more on that in my games than combat). I make corporate enclaves which are exciting and interesting because I have books to help me.

On the other hand, you're completely ignoring all of the tools a character collects in order to do whatever he's doing better. That was the start of this whole sub-thread anyway, the loss of utility spells. If you were to go camping, you'd probably have an inventory of things you consider essential, and things you think make you a better camper by virtue of your having them. If you're going to sneak into a building, you're going to want special tools, abilities and skills to help you do that, and most likely the majority of them are not really combat-related. As a great example, in SR, my favorite spell is probably suggestion, but it's completely useless in combat compated to the other things I'd have in my arsenal. To say you don't need books to support this is, well, it's like saying you don't need books for combat either. It's only marginally true.

Posted by: Reg06 Sep 22 2008, 11:32 PM

Excellent point nezumi. I can very well see that social interactions are dynamic like combat, I've just see too many players/DM's say "I seduce/intimidate/coerce/diplomacize him/her/it" "okay, let's see your roll" that I hate seeing players not using their roleplaying skills (on the flipside, my two regular groups have been good enough that when we did roll dice for social interactions it was just icing on the cake and I never really viewed it as needed in those situations, because it always was just an addition to an already good, or bad, speech).
An the utility spells, I can see your point. As much as I have loved utility spells in the past, I don't miss them. Doing away with a good portion of them means the Wizard isn't the go to guy for everything (seriously, the Fighter's player probably enjoys being the one who lifts the portcullis instead of watching the Mage Hand do it, the Ranger probably enjoys hunting instead of chowing down on some magic berries etc...). But I do think there are enough utility powers (and all classes have utility powers now), pretty much all of which are good (and at least applicable outside of combat. Keep in mind the power system rules are built around the combat system, so it may at first seem like they are all combat specific) to satisfy players. And like I have said (and boy I hope I'm not wrong), this is just the first book. Give WotC time to expand on the basic kill things and loot things ruleset.

Posted by: deek Sep 23 2008, 02:11 PM

Getting down to the root of what I was trying to say...I like the way they kept them crafting, professions and utility functions outside of the core book. I have no problem with WotC publishing a million and one types of those books outside the core rules for anyone that wants to be spoonfed that type of information for their own games. Enjoy.

And I never said that I wanted to handle it all diceless. I think a lot of it can be done without dice, and I do agree with you that abstracting is certainly a lot easier to handle social type encounters...but you don't write books that cater to the 5% that truly delve into the complexities of social interaction...do you?

Honestly, the GM has to handle more whether your book gives you 200 pages of social rules or you handle it just as roleplaying. I suppose, as a GM, I'm just more used to creating my own setting or stocking known areas with my own sorts of personalities. And when it comes down to chance, I have a fairly good and consistent feel for how I will have my players roll it. I really don't need a ton of rules bogging me down telling me how I should play my game at my table.

And plus, what if your GM doesn't like the rules? Are you, as the player, going to sit there are argue with him all night about them and ruin everyone's game?

Posted by: Wesley Street Sep 23 2008, 02:38 PM

Doesn't Diplomacy cover the social skill rolls in 4th ed?

Posted by: deek Sep 23 2008, 03:17 PM

Hehe...for some people, they need to roll 30 times and 6 different skills to feel "social" encounters are worth it/accurate...

Honestly, I am good either way. 4th edition allows quite an elaborate web of skills to be used for non-combat encounters, if the DM wants to take the time to build it out. Multiple skills, DCs and other factors combine to quite a elaborate way of getting what you want.

Or, you could simply roll a single die, succeed or fail.

Or, you could just roleplay with your DM.

Or, you could wait for a 200 page book WotC published that gives you a system to use for all the "non-adventuring" tasks your character wants to take.

Or, you could create your own.

...

This list could go on and on:)

Posted by: nezumi Sep 23 2008, 03:44 PM

I wasn't going to say anything, as I think deek has his own method of gaming and really likes that method, and I think that's fine. However, this one line kept sticking in my craw.

Since we all play SR, let's take a moment and look at the shadowrun books which are published and which do NOT focus on combat (in other words, focus on social and cultural structures, non-combat challenges, etc.) I won't include mission books, since those go both ways.

Primarily combat/mission oriented books
Matrix books (1, 2, 3 and 4)
Rigging books (1, 2, 3 and 4)
Magic books (1, 2, 3 and 4)
Cyberware books (1, 2, 3 and 4)
Gun books (1,2, 3 and 4)


Primarily world-building/social/everything else books (copied from wiki)
Character Dossier (pending 4th edition book)
1st Sprawl Sites
1st Paranormal Animals of North America
1st Shadowbeat
7112 2nd Paranormal Animals of Europe
7113 2nd Corporate Shadowfiles
7115 2nd Lone Star
7116 2nd Prime Runners
7117 2nd Bug City
7118 2nd Corporate Security Handbook
7119 2nd Cybertechnology
7120 2nd Awakenings
7121 2nd Threats
7122 2nd Portfolio of a Dragon: Dunkelzahn's Secrets
7123 2nd Underworld Sourcebook
7124 2nd Cyberpirates
7125 3rd Corporate Download
7208 2nd The Neo-Anarchists Guide to Real Life
7219 3rd Target: Matrix
10650 3rd Year of the Comet
10651 3rd Target: Awakened Lands
10652 3rd Threats 2
10653 3rd Target: Wastelands
10654 3rd Wake of the Comet
10665 3rd Survival of the Fittest
10666 3rd Dragons of the Sixth World
10667 3rd Sprawl Survival Guide
10673 3rd The Shadowrun Character Dossier
25003 3rd Mr. Johnson's Little Black Book
25006 3rd Loose Alliances
25014 3rd System Failure
26301 4th Emergence
26302 4th Ghost Cartels
7201 Seattle Sourcebook
7202 Native American Nations Volume One
7203 London
7204 Germany Sourcebook
7206 Neo-Anarchists Guide to North America
7207 Native American Nations Volume Two
7209 California Free State
7210 Tir Tairngire
7211 Tir na nOg (Ireland)
7212 Denver: The City of Shadows
7213 Aztlan (Mexico)
7214 Target: UCAS
7215 Target: Smugglers Havens
7216, 10657 & 25009 New Seattle
10655 & 25015 Shadows of North America
25002 Shadows of Europe
25007 Shadows of Asia
25011 Shadows of Latin America
26005 Runner Havens
26201 Corporate Enclaves
26202 Feral Cities


Mix
Main manuals (1, 2, 3 and 4)
Companion books (2, 3 and 4)
SOTA 63, 64



Some of those (Shadowbeat, dossier books, dragons of the sixth world, etc.) are almost exclusively about social interactions or work related to that social interactions.

Posted by: Wesley Street Sep 23 2008, 06:03 PM

Not that I disagree with your examples but the D&D core book is the engine from which all subsequent rules mechanics and campaign settings are and will be built around. And the core of D&D (and Shadowrun) is combat. Walking a maze/problem solving comes in a close second for D&D. It's what it's always been. I agree that social mechanics are important. I wish there was a way to better integrate them into play using dice rolls but it seems nearly impossible to do so in a way that uses statistics to maneuver or fail through social confrontations. Look at the BBB; only three pages of 350 are dedicated to social skills.

The majority of D&D 3rd/3.5 Edition books were an even mix between campaign setting modules and books on tweaking/getting the most out of classes (The Complete Divine, The Complete Fighter, etc). Shadowrun doesn't work on a class system (anymore) so once you have your five rule books (and you really only need the BBB to play, everything else is optional) that opens up setting and plot development. It's easier to write a setting than come up with solid rules mechanics so naturally there will be more of those kinds of books published.

Posted by: deek Sep 23 2008, 07:12 PM

@nezumi

I wasn't talking about SR...this thread started about current day gaming culture and the similarity between MMOs and the "new edition"... of DnD! Then there were a couple complaints about how the core DnD books didn't have enough non-combat powers and skills. That there were no secondary skills or crafting professions people could build into their characters.

You're taking my 5% comment out of context and debating something no one else was talking about. I'd continue to stand behind what I say about social rules and guidelines in the SR realm. As Wesley Street just pointed out, there are only 3 pages devoted to social skills, and what, a total of 3 or 4 social skills anyways?

Now I am not saying there is not a ton of plot and setting books...just that there are not a ton of pages devoted to how to "roll out" social encounters. So, take DnD or SR...the ruleset is very basic on how to roll for that sort of thing...social interactions with an NPC. And I think that any books or supplements written strictly to expand those types of rules, are a waste. But, if people will buy them and the company can make some money off of it, more power to them...all I ask for is a choice not to buy it.

Posted by: Wesley Street Sep 23 2008, 08:22 PM

I don't think books with rules for social encounters would be a waste. I would snatch them up in a heartbeat. I can only kill so many monsters before I want to do something else.

Posted by: shadowfire Sep 23 2008, 11:56 PM

When was that, cause as far as i have seen (and i only say that cause i have never seen first edition) None of the shadowrun editions have ever had a class system. Or do you not know/understand what Archetypes are?

If you look through out all the books perviously mentioned you will find tons of helpful rules on how to maximizes social/interaction skills. For instance, in 3rd edition the shadowrun companion 13 pages to help the GM run contacts with social skills in mind. the problem is that all the information tends to be spread out.
Plus, you have to take in to consideration that Socializing is less complicated mechanically than combat. In social situations, 50% of the time it is what the player character or NPC says that could cause a social blunder or success.

Posted by: Wesley Street Sep 24 2008, 03:48 AM

I understand just fine. I meant archetype. Sorry.

Posted by: Cantankerous Sep 27 2008, 12:28 PM

Time to be wildly unpopular again. The same reason that I quit playing D&D when fourth edition rolled out (and yes, for those about to ask, I've played it more than a few times, yes, I own the Core Books, yes, I even tried the WotC updates) is the same reason that the only fourth edition game I've found that I liked, including this one, is GURPS. Why?

Because here and in D&D especially, the ideology seemed to change to be more plasticine and glitzier at the expense of substance. Hey, that's my read it. I'm not saying "THIS IS HOW THINGS ARE WORLD WITHOUT END AND AMEN", just this is my impression of both systems and is precisely what GURPS did not do. They went, if anything, initially anyway, the opposite direction from that. That may be changing even with them now, as the DF (Dungeon Fantasy) line seems to indicate. GLITZ sells, pure and simple, better than substance does in a world of video game visualization and the computer ability to make the special effects. The Powers have to get higher end. The people have to have more of them. It isn't enough now to play a Fighter (which you can NOT do in D&D 4th edition anymore) who is just a guy who's ATTITUDE is heroic. To be heroic he HAS TO BE capable of doing things that NO normal human being would have a prayer of doing, and do it often. GLITZ is the Holy Grail of the industry and the people who run it are following it.

Now, I'm a very different fish. I think that the more heroic guy is the normal guy who puts his ass on the line WITHOUT being able to do fifty impossible things before breakfast. HE'S the guy who impresses me. For me the guy who can be mortally wounded one moment and fine as paint the next is BORING unto the point of tears. Did he do something impressive? Nah, he knew he could sleep walk through it. And mentally he probably did. When you can do the impossible it's no big deal to do it. It's when you can't get near it, and still do it anyway, or even fall short but TRY your damnedest... THAT is IMPRESSIVE!

For me, give me style and substance over glitz EVERY day of the week, not just any day. Superman never impressed me. Batman was much more impressive if only because he was human, sometimes he got his butt sawed off, sometimes he outright lost... and you didn't need someone capable of leveling mountains to get him there. I remember one old comic where some nameless mook busted a two by four across his face and it was good night Brucey. For me THAT is INFINITELY more impressive than Superman taking on Doomsday.

But yeah, I realize that this is just me. I'm a dinosaur after all it seems. Hey, I was shilling HARD for 4th edition D&D before it came out. Begging people on the WotC Boards who were loosing their minds about it to give it a chance. When we starting getting previews of it I tried desperately to tell myself it was just marketing ploys that were making it look the way it did. God, I hate to be wrong. *lol* But when i am, I fess up to it. One of the last posts I made on the WotC boards was an apology for shilling for the glitz, for telling people to wait and see, we (the hard core gamers) weren't going to be just blown off. Ahh well, when you screw up, you admit it and go on.


Isshia

Posted by: Dr. Funkenstein Sep 27 2008, 05:24 PM

Wow, double posted somehow.

Posted by: Dr. Funkenstein Sep 27 2008, 05:24 PM

To this day Shadowrun still uses classes. They're just openly skilled and level-less classes which can (usually) be multi-classed with ease. Off the top of my head I can think of four; Augmented (the default class), Magician, Adept, and Technomancer. Each has their own unique set of rules. You can't multi-class a Technomancer with a Magician or Adept. Multi-classing an Augment with any of the other three drastically interfers with the secondary class. etc.

Archetypes are simply basic character concepts created using those classes. Or do you not know/understand what archetypes are?

Posted by: shadowfire Sep 27 2008, 07:34 PM

lol.... Unfortunately, i do since i have to learn all about them in my film and history classes to get my media and animation degree.

But that not a class. The only thing that comes close to a class is a magician. The reason for this is that have to choose either full magicain at A priority or an aspect magician at priority B (as far as using the priority system, i don't use the other way to make characters). It not like later on you can say hey i want to learn magic- its already to late. So if you are saying there is a class system in shadowrun, its a very short one; consisting of only Magician or non-Magician. The reason for this is because you basically can start out as a face and later buy the stuff you need to deck or the stuff you need to be a rigger, or you could cyber yourself out. But you cannot buy magic.. Oh, and you don't have to make a character that is augmented.. so thats not really a class.

A archetype is the collectively inherited unconscious idea, pattern of thought, image, etc., universally present in individual psyches. if it was a class then you would be asked in the book to select one, which you are not. As in third edition the steps to creating a character are: Choose a race, Choose a magic ability (if any), choose abilities, assign skills, assign resources, contacts, lifestyle, the nuyen shuffle, and finishing touches. In fourth edition it is basically the same thing.
Really the only reason they even talk about archetypes is for those people who have no idea of what they want to play and an archetype or "basic idea" gives them somewhere to jump off from when designing a character.

Posted by: Dr. Funkenstein Sep 27 2008, 07:50 PM

You didn't really read anything I wrote did you? Because you basically just restated what I did, but failed to comprehend the class system used in Shadowrun. (And yes, there's more than "magician and non-magician," as I pointed out in my previous post.)

Just because they don't use the word "class" doesn't mean they don't exist. Classes aren't restricted to level-based or pre-packaged systems.

Posted by: Reg06 Sep 27 2008, 08:24 PM

What do you mean by that?

Posted by: shadowfire Sep 27 2008, 08:31 PM

oh, i read it.. i just thought it was crap, but hey if you want to think that way then fine.

Posted by: Dr. Funkenstein Sep 27 2008, 08:43 PM

<shrugs>

Feel free to try to build an Adept Technomancer and let me know how well that goes since classes don't exist in Shadowrun. Afterwards, try to make a magician Bodyguard and then an augmented Bodyguard and see how well that goes. Or, wait, are archetypes simply character concepts while the ability to cast spells, use adept powers, or compile sprites are reliant on specific classes? No, that can't be the case.

Archetypes have nothing to do with classes. They're only tangently related, such as needing to be a magician in order to be a Street Shaman. But, say, an Occult Investigator can easily be a magician, an adept, or even an augment/cyborg with the Astral Sight quality. All of which are different classes in Shadowrun.

And by class, I mean a general group of character concepts that use their own rules and limitations to provide special abilities to a character. As opposed to skill- or gear-reliant concepts.

Posted by: Cantankerous Sep 27 2008, 10:17 PM

You only grabbed part of the statement. The whole thing was: It isn't enough now to play a Fighter (which you can NOT do in D&D 4th edition anymore) who is just a guy who's ATTITUDE is heroic.

The 4th edition D&D Fighter, even if supposedly human, is markedly super human. He can be, multiple times per day after just a few levels, but immediately at first level at LEAST once per day, brought to deaths door, so badly wounded that he is utterly incapacitated (say, -9 or so hit points), then given first aid for a few seconds to "stabilize him" because he's "dying" and then, after combat, withOUT even the simple use of a skill with a VERY low DC, this recently stabilized, DYING person can spend healing surges to heal himself back to full health and vigor in mere moments. Multiple times per day. All of this WITHOUT any supernatural anything...except the obviously supernatural nature of the supposed human being.

The above is the major beef I have with it. But also, you can't be a normal human being and be effective as a Fighter in 4th edition D&D. Normal standard human beings, no matter how heroic they are (because heroism is ENTIRELY about your attitude, not about your kewl pwrs) just aren't good enough anymore. The most basic class in D&D goes FAR beyond the ability of the normal standard human to learn. They must now all have powers which even at minimal levels are obviously powers, even if minor ones, things that non Fighter type human beings just can NOT do. They can't even learn how to do it without becoming Fighters (class name in trademark quotes) themselves, because these things have nothing to do with being a person, but with being a beyond human being.

Glitz, glamor, the power spiral, call it what you will, it all adds up to one thing. Being human isn't NEARLY enough to be a hero.

I say: BUNK! The glitz, the super powers, the rockzor amazo asshat nonsense isn't what makes the hero any more than the sword Excalibur made Arthur a hero.

But that's just me. Personally I liked Aragorn a hell of allot better before he started running around with Narsil, when he charged the Ring Wraiths with a burning stick in each hand. I liked Elric better without Stormbringer, when he needed to use drugs just to keep on his feet. I always loved it when Conan LIMPED, or fought on with his sword arm slowing from fatigue, before finally being overwhelmed. Because these guys always won through in the end on HEART, on attitude, because IT, not the ephemeral lesser qualities of their swords or whatever, was what made them heroic. They OVERCAME the great odds, and you could identify with them, even Elric (who was not human) even Conan (who was an archetype more than a human) even Arthur and Aragorn, who were both a bit more than human, because they suffered the same frailties as human beings. THAT, not their abilities or powers, is what made them interesting.

4th Edition D&D has lost that totally, 4th edition Shadowrun edges ever further away from humanity, but still retains far more of it. Many of the newer games are going for the VERY visual "kewl pwrs" angle and away from what REALLY makes a hero a hero.

[/end rant]

Isshia

edit: added the bolded part

Posted by: Reg06 Sep 28 2008, 04:30 PM

You know, I had a long reply written up, but screw it. At this point all we are arguing about are play styles. You want to play John McClane (I want that RPG as well), and 4e is about playing Beowulf and Gilgamesh, Merlin and Hercules (which I enjoy for a change). Mechanics can be argued, but play style is a waste of time, and I won't try to convince you that 4e fits yours. But please don't insult the players of 4e by calling us/them childish with no sort of role playing talent who only want shiny things and cool tricks. 4e is a heroic fantasy game (in the way that Beowulf is a tale of heroic fantasy), and it succeeds well at that.

Posted by: shadowfire Sep 28 2008, 05:07 PM

I agree with Cantankerous.... which he was not talking about play style- he was talking about the mechanics.

The problem is that there are way better non-D&D games out there that do the whole heroic journey. What the point of playing through the Heroic journey if there is no fear of death. Look back at what Cantankerous pointed out, no matter how badly fragged up you are after a battle- you'll be up and running in a matter of moments thanks to lame super mario/donkey kong styled powers/abilities. The heroes of old- even if they were the son of a god, still need the people around them to help them on the way. You don't even need that with 4E. every class can heal and the priest class is still need only because they act more like a boost for healing, but if you don't have one then it will be no sweat. The point of the heroic journey is to test the boundaries of the human existence, but you can't do that if death is not always around every corner to strike fear in the character's heart.
On top of this the typical D&D gamers attitude tend to be the opposite of the heroic- but i wont get started on that.

Posted by: Reg06 Sep 28 2008, 06:10 PM

And there you are both wrong. Every character has access to a Second Wind ONCE per encounter, which recovers 1/4 of their hitpoints. That's not inhuman, it's not unheroic, it's exactly what you want- the character pushing the boundaries of what his/her body can do and continuing on. Clerics are still needed to access the other healing surges. Without a healing class (cleric or warlord) you will suffer, greatly. I still don't understand why people seem to think death is not possible in 4e, as it is just as likely as it was in the previous edition (where clerics had more healing abilities and you could simply spam wands of healing).
If you have trouble accepting healing after battle, then understand what hit points are. They are an abstract of how well your character is. They aren't health boxes like Shadowrun and WoD has that directly track damage, hit points instead track exhaustion, willpower, luck, resolve, health, and the ability to turn deadly strikes into glancing blows (most of that directly quoted from the PHB). A 12th level fighter can't take 7 direct blows to the head from a great club, but he can fighter through several minor glancing blows and a minor concussion. Yes you can simply take a short rest and use as many healing surges as you need, but that only happens once or twice a day.
"The heroes of old- even if they were the son of a god, still need the people around them to help them on the way." Like who? Not Beowulf, he tore the arm off a troll with his bare hands and single handedly slew the mother (he did have some assistance killing the dragon, but he was old and weak then). Not Hercules, who completed 10 of the 12 tasks by himself (only the cleansing of the stables and the slaying of the lion did he have assistance with). And that's not to mention that the heroes you play in 4e do have people around to help them- their party.
"I agree with Cantankerous.... which he was not talking about play style- he was talking about the mechanics." No. The mechanics work perfectly for the genre, you and Cantankerous simply want the game to be something it isn't trying to be (and gloss over the parts of the game that are what you want).
"On top of this the typical D&D gamers attitude tend to be the opposite of the heroic- but i wont get started on that." Has nothing to do with the edition. Don't even try to go down that road.

Posted by: Cantankerous Sep 28 2008, 06:43 PM

I don't want THAT game to be anything. I simply wish that they wouldn't call it a Fantasy Role Playing Game when it is only possible to play a single style of fantasy even decently: which might be best referred to as anime style fantasy. They still tout themselves as a broad based Fantasy system. They aren't. You can't do any of the classic fantasy genre styles except gods and demigods.

Ohh, and how is taking yourself from deaths door, DYING, as per the D&D RAW, to almost 1/4 of your hit points in a few seconds, without magic NOT supernatural? A team mate can spend an action in combat to allow you a second wind, where you can go from negative hit points, dying as per the RAW, to back to fighting, in mere seconds. If you then spend a few rounds yourself doing simple healing surges, you can, while combat is still going on around you, take yourself from death's door to fully good to go, without magic, in less than thirty seconds. You don't get much more supernatural than that. And if you have a few extra healing surges, say from being some levels up, you can do it more than once per day.

So, unless you are wanting to play super heroes, because the Beowulf of legend certainly goes far beyond any human ability in nearly every respect, you aren't wanting D&D 4E. Correct?

Ohh, and McClane is definitively suited to D&D 4E more than any other game I've seen, except maybe DC Super Heroes.


Isshia

Posted by: shadowfire Sep 28 2008, 06:51 PM

I think a more realistic mechanic of a dying character pushing himself would be more like how 3rd edition shadowrun has it set up. When you take a Deadly physical wound you must make a willpower test against a target number to stay conscious, however, you will need to make that same said roll every time you take damage until you have meet your overflow total or pas out/ fail the test.

1/4 of your hit points is not like a blood clot forming over the wound(s). You don't go from exhausted and dazed from blood lose to ok in that amount of time unless your a video game character or in an anime. Hell, even first aid can't do what 4E surges do.

Posted by: Reg06 Sep 28 2008, 07:51 PM

Again, I either did not explain it correctly or you just refuse to understand, hitpoints do not just reflect physical wounds. That's not me defending 4e by "interpreting" what the book says, that is what the PHB actually says on the matter.
It's not a gritty game, nobody ever said that, but it is a game of heroics. It is a cinematic game (don't call it an Anime Fantasy Roleplaying Game, it's not. That's gamer elitism bashing what the young kids do. I myself hate anime, but it doesn't stop me from loving Exalted), and it does a very good job at making mythic and legendary heroes (for whom death is just as likely as before).
"If you then spend a few rounds yourself doing simple healing surges, you can, while combat is still going on around you, take yourself from death's door to fully good to go, without magic, in less than thirty seconds." No, that is wrong, entirely wrong. Every character gets a Second Wind, which is a 25% health boost ONCE per encounter that uses up a Healing Sure. Once. It requires specific powers (which are for the most part unique to the healing and leadership classes) to use more Healing Surges.
"So, unless you are wanting to play super heroes, because the Beowulf of legend certainly goes far beyond any human ability in nearly every respect, you aren't wanting D&D 4E. Correct?" I'll ignore the "super heroes" bit, it's no more true in 4e than in 3rd. But yes. You don't play Heroes for it's vulnerable and easily defeated characters; you don't play Exalted for a mundane and gritty world; and you don't play Shadowrun for tales of upstanding, peaceful characters. Likewise, you don't play 4e because you want a game about a bunch of farmers and tradesmen who have a grudge against some orcs- you play it because you want to play a hero (whether or not your character is a hero is based entirely upon how you play it) who journeys into the darkness and is the center of some really cool stories.
"You don't go from exhausted and dazed from blood lose to ok in that amount of time unless your a video game character or in an anime." Or you know, any character from any action movie, or literary characters (you know, people like Conan). I'll repeat it, the Second Wind is usable ONCE per encounter.

Posted by: Cantankerous Sep 28 2008, 08:49 PM

Look man, to state something is anime style (over the top everyone has powers and can snap back from near death when they want to, IS anime style, not cinematic...there have been plenty of movies, more perhaps, where a hero goes down when he's hurt than he ignores it and fights on, so it sure as Hell is NOT cinematic style) isn't bashing it. If you like the style cool, but if you don't it isn't cool to try to call other peoples acknowledgment of it's existence BASHING it simply because YOU don't like it.

As to Healing Surges: true, true, you have to wait until combat is over. Brain fart there. But then, after a five minute rest you can spend as many of them as you like, up to your maximum per day.

Let's take an example: Your character has 60 hit points normally and during combat he takes 67 hit points worth of damage. He is, as per the rules, DYING at this point. Without help he is going to need a short rest before becoming conscious, at the very least. So, without help he is badly enough bashed about to be, at the dead least, unconscious for five minutes. He may also actually die if he fails three death saves. This isn't small potatoes then. Yet, he can get a First Aid check from his friend while he is still in combat, giving him a second wind roll, and a healing surge thusly. Now, the combat ends next round and he didn't get hit again, so he's at 7 hit points (if you count zero). Our Fighter with the sixteen Con had say, 12 healing surges left before combat started. He's used one in his second wind to take him from dying, to fighting unimpeded. After a five minute rest he then spends three more to bring him back to 52, but not being satisfied, he spends one more to get back to full. Yep, he went from deaths door to combat effective in seconds, during combat mind you, and back to fine as ever in five and half minutes MINUS after combat is over. Without magic.

For shits and grins, taken to negative 12 in the next fight he does exactly the same thing again. Twice in a day, he's been revived from near death to PERFECT health with six TOTAL minutes elapsed time per combat. Without magic...AGAIN!

Now, let's say that in that second combat he took his 73 points of damage that time around from a looooong fall off a cliff. Actually it doesn't matter in the least HOW he took the damage after all. It could have been from laying in lava and being yanked out before it totally consumed him. The point is that even in THAT situation he could then have a friend give him first aid, leap to his feet (albeit with 2 hit points left initially) and fight on unimpeded. Then after a five minute rest, after having already miraculously been rendered unconscious and dying once in the day and jumping right back in to combat, he does it a second time after a fall that would have killed a warhorse, our boy is back up and running in seconds, and completely and utterly fit at the same "hit points" as he has at perfect health, within five and a half more minutes. AGAIN, without magic.

Sorry. That simply IS supernatural. Period.



Isshia

Posted by: Reg06 Sep 28 2008, 11:13 PM

I'm not going to lie, I don't like hit point systems (so it is very hard for me to defend it, but I do not think it ruins 4e in anyway). I think they are silly, and almost anything else would be better. As you pointed out with the lava, it doesn't accurately represent how damage is dealt, only that damage is dealt. Which means you have to take into consideration things that impede your combat effectiveness besides physical damage, like exhaustion or being mentally defeated. Ever watched a Jackie Chan movie? There is no way any normal human could go through that amount of punishment and keep on fighting. Ever read Xuthal of the Dusk? Conan gets beaten and cut to ribbons, way beyond what any mortal should be able to take, and then kills Thog. Literature and film are full of characters who get "killed", and then keep fighting anyways.
4e characters aren't mundane by any means, but these are people who regularly slay dragons and slaughter demons (and there has to be something that makes Fighters able to keep up with Wizards). It's not about playing King Arthur, but about playing Achilles, Ajax, Ulysses, Beowulf, Hercules, and Sigmund- characters who stand out from the crowd and carve their names into history.

Posted by: shadowfire Sep 29 2008, 02:58 AM

What do they call Hit points then if they are not the measurement of your general health? I wont be able to say if you are correct or not until i know. I would look this up, but i deleted my copy for the trash that it was.

Hit point systems are ok, they just don't reflect health as well as other mechanics can- such as "In dark alleys" which has a good health track system to it.

Posted by: Cantankerous Sep 29 2008, 12:10 PM

And is almost dead himself afterward. And doesn't recover in mere moments. Conan, as written by Howard (and deCamp and Carter) is TOUGH! But he DOES get wounded and the wounds do take him down. He keeps on going, not beyond any mortal, but FAR beyond what the average warrior could take. Conan is ENTIRELY mortal, and if he weren't he would loose most of his appeal. He is fought to a stand still by other warriors more than once and as he gets old he looses some of that titanic strength and boundless endurance. Where Conan goes almost into the realm of the archetype is in that he is weak nowhere. He's intelligent (if unlearned) and speaks more languages than most scholars by the latter stages of his career. He's strong as hell, although there are men stronger, like Baal Pteor, he's tremendously quick and fast and enduring and charismatic and ....you get the picture. But all within human bounds. THAT is what makes Conan Conan! .


Isshia

Posted by: shadowfire Sep 29 2008, 01:29 PM

plus Conan is more of a higher level character even in the first book, since he had years of special training and pit fighting experience.

Posted by: nezumi Sep 29 2008, 03:00 PM

Dr. Funkenstein is correct. Shadowrun is a class system. Similarly, IRL, I am of the class 'computer security expert', with the sub-class 'policy expert'. I've also dual-classed into the popular 'husband/father' role since our party didn't have one yet. I haven't been published yet, but I'm also hoping to add the class 'author'. I let my 'gamer' class lapse, but I don't think the skills have degraded too far. So right there I guess I have four separate classes, although I'm sure I missed a few.

Honestly, no, I don't think Shadowrun has a class system unless you squint at it funny. At best it has a pseudo-class system. Everyone can be a sam or a decker or even a rigger. In fact, most people do have some significant experience with firearms, which would imply either just about everyone is class street sam, or no one is class street sam. Most people have at least limited experience decking, so you can say that everyone is of class decker, to one degree or another (if the limit is 'must be able to deck'), or some deckers change from deckers to nothing at all depending on the circumstances (if the limit is 'must have the equipment to deck' - i.e. a deck). Riggers are even worse. People regularly drive the party in missions even without a VCR, and there are dedicated drivers who never get a VCR. However, many VCR-3 riggers find that they have no vehicles at their disposal at one time or another. So what makes someone of a particular class? You can't simply say 'it's based on having this skill' or 'it's based on what the character actually does in the party'. People have skills not related to their driving focus, and play roles through necessity they aren't optimized for. You can't base it on gear, because gear comes and goes. A decker who loses his deck is still a decker. You can't base it on cyberware. It's not hard to make an adept who can realistically compete with a VCR rigged guy, or someone who uses a trodenet but still does illegal decking. The lines are too fuzzy, and any attempt to say 'you are a decker and you are not' is necessarily arbitrary.

You can't win me over to SR4 by using the old 'style over substance' adage!! I know how much style SR3 has!

Posted by: deek Sep 29 2008, 03:51 PM

@nezumi
I think you are targeting the wrong aspects of SR to draw class examples. As Dr. Funk wrote, and I agree with, the four classes are: Augmented (the default class), Magician, Adept, and Technomancer. Now each of those classes can rig, deck or shoot a gun...point is, I think you are misunderstanding the class "discussion".

@Cantankerous
I'd certainly agree that DnD4 is more supernatural or above the top than prior editions. You really don't have the option of playing a "normal guy" that just has the attitude of hero...at least without a lot of cutting from the core rules. I mean, you could play a fighter with nothing but basic attacks. You could take all the healing surges and translate those into total hit points and just track that number and not ever surge during the day...but I see your point. I don't feel that that ruins all games, but it is certainly restricting what you seem to want out of the game, from a character standpoint.

In the games I have played so far with my group, we've had to already resurrect one player, I've been knocked unconscious twice (with one surge taking place in combat), our fighter has been knocked unconscious once and been very close to death at least 3 times and our mage has been low at least 3 times in separate combat. As the warlord of the group, I can only surge people twice per encounter...after that, its up to them using an action point to second wind or forgoing an attack for a second wind. I'd say that (and it may just be our DM) DnD4 is more deadly than any other edition we've played. We are always going negative or dying...its just that it is a lot easier to get back to health.

Now, as you put it, this is a bad thing. The mechanics don't let you be heroes. But, on the flip side, the mechanics let our group move on to the next fight...without having to travel into town for healing, without having to rest 6-8 hours for our cleric to re-mem his spells, heal and then rest another 6-8 so we can move on at full power. I don't know, I just kinda feel like we get more "meat and potatoes" done in 4th. We get more combat, more treasure and more time to roleplay for personal reasons...as opposed to roleplay because we need to be healed or need more rest.

I actually feel more heroic with our 4th edition group than past groups. We can take on a lot more in a day and we don't need to rest nearly as much. If our surges are drained and our daily powers are gone...yeah, we'd rather rest 6-8 hours to get back to full strength before going into the final room of the dungeon. But, that doesn't seem to ruin everyone's fun and none of us have gotten hung up on the fact that no, "normal human" can do this stuff. I guess I've really never even attempted to correlate real human to any game I have played...so this has never been a flaw to any game system I have played.

Posted by: shadowfire Sep 29 2008, 04:09 PM

hmmmm... If i squint at this it looks like it says Magician, adept, and technomancer (which is crap 4th stuff) are seperate. but if i remember right adepts and technomancers are magicians??? how weird. Cause as i understood it Adepts are a magician who channels their powers inward.. where as technomancer( the lame version of otaku) is a magician that can manipulate and connect with the matrix much like a normal magician would connect to the astral plane.. So more like sub-classes and a whole separate class. Plus calling a class augmented would suggest that that you had to at character creation take some form of cyberware.. which you don't... But hey some people like playing cyberpunk 2020 from what i hear.

Posted by: Cantankerous Sep 29 2008, 05:42 PM

Ohh, sure. All of this comes down to tastes. Mine simply run differently. Hell, I realize what a dinosaur I am. But being super heroish just does not, in any manner seem heroic to me. Personally I'm not even fond of playing Mages. If I can't feel a connection to the character, whether it be in a movie or a book or a game, I loose interest fast...really FAST! I'm the kind who Plays Oblivion with the difficulty slider set to 100, all the realism mods I can load on thrown in, all the mods that nerf the uber powers engaged and when the character dies, eh's dead. Level one in the first real fight or level 25 in the final fight, if he dies, game over, start again.


Isshia

Posted by: deek Sep 29 2008, 06:13 PM

True, true...honestly, you don't "have" to follow any real class rules during chargen. That's a plus, as you can create ANYTHING, but it also is a hindrance, cause you could end up with a very poor, playable character. I think ideally, classes are there in SR, its just they are strong recommendations, not firm rules that force you down any of those paths.

I think the thing is, that the rules themselves, have no classes. But, in actual game play, classes do exist...we just don't call them classes and aren't forced down a path. But going down the path, at least for your first couple hundred karma, is a pretty good idea.

@Cantankerous
Hehe...yeah, you are a dinosaur! I understand what you are saying and it intrigues me...it would just take me a while to get use to that type of playstyle. I commend you and definitely can see how each character you create is a major hero...especially if he survives for a while.

Posted by: shadowfire Sep 29 2008, 06:32 PM

Realistically, you should change your play style if you tend to kill or nearly kill your character every combat session or so. Cause this means that you are doing something fundamental wrong; probably tactics wise.

Posted by: Cantankerous Sep 29 2008, 07:30 PM

There's the truth of it.

Honestly, when I played Oblivion, as outlined above, my first two characters died at low levels, including one who was barely out of the sewers and ventured across to the ruins of, I don't remember what, but directly across from the sewer exits, and ran in to four bandits plus the pair of guards that were supposed to be there and after running away from that crowd, he ran almost face first in to the trio of orcs guarding the entrance to the ruins of the Fort directly to the south Syonara baby.

But the third guy, built for stealth and SPEED managed to finish the main scenario and become Head of the Thieves Guild (which was worse than the main quest for pity sake) along the way. In no small part on his ability to run away when the situation warranted it.


Especially in Shadowrun though you can easily survive on tactics and preparation and, in short, being a smart runner, without magic, without even cyberware. One of those rare and precious occasions where I got to play for an extended period of time I played what was basically a jack of all trades type with very little cyberware, no magic and tons of skill spread out over a bit of everything and just plain tactical know how. That was the most fun I've ever had with a SR character.


Isshia

Posted by: nezumi Sep 29 2008, 08:22 PM

I don't know what this 'technomancer' thing is. I suppose you could define the classes as 'adept', 'mage/shaman/whatever' and 'everything else under the sun', with the understanding that you can, and most likely will, multi-class between the three with few real limitations. And of course, someone in the mage/shaman/whatever class and the adept class can change to the 'everything else' class pretty easily.

May as well describe Shadowrun as a class system between 'drop bear' and 'prey'. At least then it's clear when someone is one or the other.

Posted by: shadowfire Sep 29 2008, 10:52 PM

The age old adage works well in gaming: Never eat anything bigger than your head.

Now if you don't think its your playing style, then you should roast some coals under your GM cause he is plain out to get you.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Sep 29 2008, 11:00 PM

What about a big ceasar salad?

Posted by: shadowfire Sep 30 2008, 07:08 AM

thats more a grouping of small items and safe to eat.. unless you fear the color green.

Posted by: Catsnightmare Oct 21 2008, 03:17 AM

I could not agree with you more on this.

Posted by: Wesley Street Oct 29 2008, 05:16 PM

Is "crunching more numbers" the same as "thinking more"? The role-playing bit of RPGs is always there. It just depends on how much the group wants to engage in it.

Posted by: shadowfire Oct 29 2008, 09:58 PM

you can still have more content to the game system without it becoming a "numbers crunching" beast. in my own system i have many rules that should cover just about anything the characters can pull out of their hoop, but they don't cause the game to become overbearing or unbalanced. why? because they are based of the same basic rules and only the Gm need to worry about them.

Posted by: Wesley Street Oct 30 2008, 01:52 PM

I'd rather have a basic set of rules that address common situations than a phone book that covers every eventuality. A GM should be able to deal with PC actions using the spirit of the rules rather than memorizing a law book. Plus there are always optional rules introduced in expansion productions.

Posted by: Icepick Nov 23 2008, 04:26 AM

Use the old ones. I still draw quite a bit of material from some of my first and second edition books. In particular I use the availability and price mod charts, as well as the crime punishment charts quite often. Plus the history sections don't change too much with newer editions.