Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: tete Oct 20 2016, 05:37 AM

The good - if you want shadowrun lite it does offer that if your ok with things becoming even more generic.
The bad - people who want more shadowrun feel other than a big dice pool are going to be left wanting, also people who don't like large dice pools won't have any options like ubiquity and fate do, lastly it's not traditional gm or gm less it's some weird inbetween I would have preferred gm less with gm optional rules.
The ugly - I know opinionated rpg writing is all the rage right now but frankly parts of this book are insulting. It feels like it's written in places by someone who has had awful gms and awful players and need to give them all the finger.

What are your thoughts.

Posted by: Gingivitis Oct 20 2016, 06:43 AM

The Good - The action is very quick, with no rulebook diving. Shadow Amps balance the archetypes, and Karma balances the advancement. Characters, after a 15 minute build-time, are immediately immersible. The game is completely modular and adaptable to your table; if you want a thing to be true, make it true as a group (including character concepts, scene narrations, house rules, etc.).

The Bad - Like all Shadowrun editions, it is clearly written for people who have played Shadowrun before; there is a little lore in Anarchy to ground a new player into the setting but even less to ground them into the system. The Anarchy gameplay experience is tightly tied to your table; if you have spotlight-hogging players or an adversarial GM, the shared story-telling can be a problem (but if you don't, it's great!)

The Ugly - Like all Catalyst Games publications, it sorely needs editing and proof-reading; we (players deeply invested in the concept and who posted on the official boards) got a lot of errata pushed through but there will remain more needed even after it goes to print. Luckily, see "The Good." (And my signature!)

[Edit] I should add that I have had 3 sessions so far after converting SR5 characters to Anarchy.

Posted by: Mantis Oct 21 2016, 02:34 AM

Thanks for the reviews. This pretty much puts me off even bothering with this product. The lack of care when editing in previous books makes reading the book a chore rather than a joy. I don't want to have my train of thought interrupted by having to figure out what was actually meant. Also, if whatever author it is that overuses the words This, These and That had anything to do with this book, I'd rather bash my head open than wade through another document by them. If you don't know what I'm talking about read either Protectors and Despoilers in Hazard Pay or Fall of a Dragon in Storm Front. Painful.

Posted by: Medicineman Oct 21 2016, 05:57 AM

one more Reason to wait for the German Edition , even if it may take a while

with a patient Dance
Medicineman

Posted by: hermit Oct 22 2016, 01:45 AM

The good:
* It offers Shadowrun Lite for people who want Shadowrun Lite. It probably works well for quick three-hour games.
* Very good world introduction chapters.
* For all the rules' faults, the pregenerated characters make the most of them, and are by themselves a lot more diverse, colourful, and entertaining than usual Shadowrun archetypes.
* The Living World details fun adventure seeds; this collection is usable without Anarchy, too, though some seeds need a bit of polishing to work with a longer, standard game.

The Bad:
* Characters are flat, narrow, one-trick, and can never outgrow that. this caters to a very specific play style and unnecessarily narrows down Anarchy's potential audience.
* With its starkly limited amp and skill slots, Anarchy manages to be even more magerun than SR5.
* Some parts (Karma is the new, official in-game currency johnsons pay you with) are so gamist and counterimmersive, it would make a 90s videogame ashamed.
* There's way too much "if you don't like this, make a houserule" but none of the promised rules toolkit. If a rules system comes along half-baked and then tells me "write your own if you think you'Re so clever!", I don't need to waste money on this book. I just dig into FATE and come up with a Shadowrun hack, or use one of the dozens available.
* There's a discerning lack of courage in maintaining traditional GM as opposed to a true narrative, GM-less system. Clearly, that was the idea, but by both preserving a traditional GM slot, and by regulating plot points, making any interrupt based on spending one of five points, and ensuring the GM has limitless plot points, SR narchy fails to muster up the courage to live up to its self-ascribed Narrative nature. As is, SR Anarchy is a lot more traditional, top-down structured than FATE, let alone Mystic GM Emulator.
* Plus, there's a lack of clarity how the Cue system's cues work, other than as a notebook of sorts of how to play a pregenerated, unfamiliar character (something that has been done just like this 25 years ago already). There's also no explanation as to why, with cues, you also need tags that seem to do the same thing.

The Ugly:
* Tune down the douchebroness already. You aren't funny. You aren't playful. You just sound like assholes.
* Also, some structure would really help this book. It is insultingly untidy, with rules about something being scattered all across the book and tied by references, sometimes even in a circle (for X, see p. 106; on p. 106: see p. 12; on p. 12, see p.106). Case in point: What Essence Loss Modifiers are and how they work.

Posted by: Critias Oct 22 2016, 08:37 AM

Okay, I'm curious. When folks complain about the tone of the book, or the chip on the shoulder, or the douchebroness, or what-have-you -- can someone gimme some examples?

I'll readily admit that "tone" wasn't what I was looking for on my proofing runs, and I was certainly paying more attention to some sections than others, on my various read-throughs (meaning I may not have even seen the bits y'all are complaining about). That said, I've heard the complaint multiple times, from multiple sources, so I'm curious enough that any page numbers, paragraphs, or quotes would be appreciated.

Posted by: Medicineman Oct 22 2016, 09:02 AM

What is douchebroness ?
I know a Douchebag and MLP Bro-Fans (but aren't they called Bronies ? )
and I know a Baroness, but I can't make a connection....
If someone could explain that expression to me ?

With a Dance on the wrong way
Medicineman

Posted by: hermit Oct 22 2016, 10:04 AM

Just ask the http://de.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=douchebro.

Basically, a http://de.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bro who is also a http://de.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=douchebag. A douchebro. Typical english compound word.

A bro|ny is a bro who is into MLP (po|nies), for reference on how this compounding works.


I'll reread it and post. It wasn't one big quote, it was dozerns of smaller, irksome sentences that added nothing but came across as bratty, arrogant, both, or otherwise fairly unpleasant.

Examples (two out of many):
* Strength: It’s how strong you are. Duh. (p 29)
* Helps you quickly come up with an answer to the ever-present question, “If you’re so smart, why are you still on the streets?” (p 29)

The first is plainly superfluous - thank you, Captain Obvious. It also comes across as arrogant. The second is much bitterer - aside from being annoyingly assumptuous and easily read as an insult to the player, it also carries a super-sized serving of racist arrogance.

And that is one random page.

Posted by: DeathStrobe Oct 22 2016, 02:11 PM

I'd argue the book needs stuff like that, else the book is too vanilla, thus boring to read. But that's me.

Posted by: Medicineman Oct 22 2016, 02:47 PM

And I don't want my intelligence or Common Sense insulted

You can surely spice up the reading but you don't need to do that by insulting the Players
When I read something like this

it seems to me pretty Vain and insulting
(maybe its lockerroom writing, I don't know)

HokaHey
Medicineman

Posted by: Gingivitis Oct 22 2016, 06:04 PM

I didn't mind the tone too much. I have been getting called "chummer" since 1990. I get that it is supposed to be an immersive, setting-based method of getting the rules across. Shadowrun has always had the tone of a veteran runner, giving advice to a new runner. But passages with tone like that should be confined to flavor text and fluff (like Bleeding of the Edge chapter), not in the meat of the rule set.

The one that irked me though was:

p. 40 (Attack Limits)

Its a little holier than thou for the chapter that it's in. You have to remember that you are writing this for two audiences: those new to Shadowrun (in which case, this passage is unnecessarily combative), and those Shadowrun veterans (in which case, they legitimately need a valid distinction from SR5 to help them shift mechanics).

It's best in both cases to just explain the concept clearly and unequivocally.

Posted by: hermit Oct 22 2016, 06:55 PM

That's how all rules texts should be approached. Aside from being grating and making me wonder about the intelligence of the authors, it is just bloat, page space that could have been put to more productive use (like a concise definition how Essence loss penalties work that isn't literally spread in tiny morsels all across the book). Unfortunatly, it isn't in recent SR products. It's not like this problem is confined to Anarchy.


That's not what I get from these 'witty' asides, though. They sound like a poser telling a veteran what's what. Makes me want to ask them what the colour of the boat house in Hereford is and assault them with a cup of coffee, to be honest.

Posted by: Glyph Oct 22 2016, 07:30 PM

Yeah, that's been the problem with SR5 from the get-go, and it seems to be in Anarchy, too. I don't think it's necessarily malicious; they seem to think they are being witty, or cool. But if you think you have something witty, or cool, to say, then that's what the shadowtalk is for!! When I read the description of the Dodge Scoot, I don't need to read "no self-respecting shadowrunners would be caught dead on one." That would be fine if it was done as a poster in the shadowtalk (maybe with someone under it posting "Hey!"), but it has no place in the vehicle description. Something like "This little scooter will get you jeers from go-gangers, but is perfect for blending in with all of the other corporate commuters" would be better.

Posted by: hermit Oct 22 2016, 07:39 PM

I agree (for the most part). All the more reason to inform them that their self-perception and what it seems like to outsiders is very different.


That's another irksome thing - Anarchy seems to assume there is only one true way to play Shadowrun, and that is gonzo pink mohawk. It fits in the general limitation-heavy Anarchy system, but given that I don't enjoy gonzo pink mohawk games, it doesn't sell me on Anarchy the way it maybe is intended to.

Posted by: Gingivitis Oct 23 2016, 08:38 AM

I should be clear: I am definitely on the side of "this product is RPG gold that needs some polishing."

Despite any distractions, uncertainty, and misunderstandings, this is a very playable, moderately accessible system with unlimited potential.

I cannot recommend it enough, honestly. It plays EXACTLY like your table wants it to play. Combined with the errata and liberal use of community input, I can see this overtaking SR5 at a lot of tables.

Posted by: hermit Oct 23 2016, 09:33 AM

No, it doesn't. Speaking from experience, I can say this is more than a bit presumptive. It may play exactly like your table wants it to play. But not every table is your table.

Anarchy lacks a GM-light or GM-free structure, and modding it in is just as complex as it is with SR5 core. Now, getting rid of the need for a fixed GM (which nobody wants to be all the time) was one of the strongest appeals for a SR Narrative system for my table, and anarchy just didn't deliver there. You don't need to convert to Anarchy if you use a FATE-inspired narrative structure or MGME anyway.

Posted by: Gingivitis Oct 23 2016, 10:45 AM

I'll admit that I have never played MGME, but I have played FATE (in the form of Dresden Files) and SR 1-5 (along with D&D 1-5, and a half-dozen others). I cannot see how SR:A, in its base form, does not at least qualify as GM-light. The GM knows a few things more than the players (for suspense and discovery) but the players decide, to a great degree, how things play out.

There isn't a collaborative world-building process before play, but it is definitely built whilst playing, to the extent that your table desires. There isn't a collaborative character-building process but your characters are as deep and as deeply entwined as your table desires. The GM rolls the opposing dice for Tests, but does it really matter from who's hand the dice fall?

The Contract Briefs are...brief...enough that rotating GMs could happen every night. That's not a mod... that's just an agreement at the table. Rotation could even happen with every Scene. Heck, start the GM with a player character and 3 plot points and you can rotate every Turn.*

*Thanks, I just realized I am going to try this!

Posted by: hermit Oct 23 2016, 11:50 AM

Yeah, you can do that with SR5 core too, you know. Maybe we define GM light differently.

My point is: The players' turns describe scenes from their characters' perspective and with their characters at the center (hence the cues). Yes, they 'may' introduce NPCs or spend one of their three plot points per session on 'interrupts and obstacles' that immediately affect the overall story, but the storytelling, world maintainance is firmly in the GM's hand. There is no true collaborative, equital world- and story-building, and it's still the GM's job as a benevolent dictator to keep every car of the story train firmly on the railroad tracks. The writing repeatedly stresses this point actually.

And all that can be done with SR5 core too. In fact, it is pretty much how my table ran things already (with SR4A, for full disclosure), sans formalized plot points. Those actually limit this type of conditional GM dictatorship (as opposed to the total hegemony traditional gaming prefers).


We've been experimenting with a similar, though less formal and conditional, system for some time at my table. It, of course, makes coherent plotting harder (though for the most part, Anarchy's contact briefs are vague enough it should work), but did work well enough at my table (with SR4A). What I am looking for is a more formalized rotating GM system, or one that is entirely GM free. This works reasonably well with MGME, though it's easy to fall back into GMing reflexes and not use the GME. It works moderately well with FATE.

However, I don't see how Anarchy works well with that, since it still demands a dedicated GM person at the table, and the players can be (using anarchy as written) at best "deputy GM" for a short time, with the GM always at the ready to rein them in (in Anarchy as written, that seems to be the primary concern). That is not GM light. It might be called reduced GM visibility, but it only reluctantly grants any power transfer to players, and only conditionally, paid for with limited currency, and always at the ready to yank control from grubby munchkin player hands, because you know, players.

Posted by: freudqo Oct 23 2016, 01:53 PM

I understand this bullshit is not "in character"?

I had always understood the shadowrun "reputation" system to be the exact opposite of this shit.

Posted by: hermit Oct 23 2016, 02:02 PM

Nope, in straight-up rules text. A vehicle description. Probably intended to be flavorous, but sort of overshot the mark.


Depends on the approach to the system. There are two basic "schools" there - Black Trenchcoat (gritty, 'realistic' spy game, where low-key appearance, silencers, rare gunfights and elaborate, clever plans are key - think Blade Runner meets Person of Interest and Leverage.) and Pink Mohawk (overplayed, big guns, flashy outfits, blingy cars, explosions, massive shootouts with lasers and 'frontal assault' being the first, last and only plan - think Fast&Furious meets 90s Stallone and Judge Dredd). Usually, shadowrun products try to balance between those two 'schools' of playing the game. Anarchy, however, swings almost entirely towards Pink Mohawk. Which brought us this quote.

Posted by: freudqo Oct 23 2016, 02:29 PM

I don't know. Honestly, even in the most pink mohawk setting, I really can't picture shadowrun as being a game where a runner would give a shit about dying on a dodge scout. That's seriously lame, and precisely the opposite of what the game has always promised, pink mohawk or not, for character types.

Posted by: Gingivitis Oct 24 2016, 01:56 AM

From my personal experience, I have to disagree that Anarchy swings entirely Pink Mohawk. I've run 3 sessions so far (not in order):

One could be classified as Pink Mohawk as there was a van vs. go-ganger running chase scene with bullets and fireballs flying.

One was entirely stealth and subterfuge and even when I nudged for a fight with a security mage, the players pulled a fast one, used disguise, and fast-talked their way out.

One was a mix (as I believe most good campaigns end up): there was quiet infiltration, hacking, and plenty of legwork, but there was also a caterer that was brained with a wine bottle and a security guard tranq-darted in the neck.

In all 3 sessions, I GMed knowing only 1-2 Hard Points (plot details that I knew that I wanted to be true), but because our table built the story together, it went way off-course. I didn't have to reign it in; I just leaned into it. Now, granted, my players have been grouped for many years and there were no "I see a spaceship!" or "all the guards go on break at the same time" Narratives to try to lasso back. But I do not see my experience as an anomaly.

If a player wants a thing to be true, it is. If the table wants to expand Amp slots or Skill slots, it does. If the players want to sit back and ride a story-line, they can. Tags, Cues and Dispositions are as important as the table wants them to be: mostly ignored, or grant Plot Points for RP, or extra Karma for RP, or docked for bad RP, whatever. Make what you want of it... or don't. I am not the boss of you.

I guess what I meant too by, "It plays EXACTLY like your table wants it to play" is that if you don't want it to work, it won't.

Posted by: Jaid Oct 24 2016, 03:10 AM

is there some context that makes the second *racist* arrogance as opposed to just regular arrogance? i'm not picking up on what makes it racist... but to be fair, i've never been the target of racist arrogance (and there's not a ton of it in the places i grew up in general), so maybe the missing context is in me rather than the text.

Posted by: hermit Oct 24 2016, 08:38 AM

See, I have run my games like this (though mostly, players lean into the GM (usually me or one other guy, because they want the experience of discovering a plot, not directing one) since SR2. Actually, I think in gaming theory terms, it's called the Island Method or something similar. I don't need Anarchy for that. In fact, Anarchy restricts this player interaction by regulating it and tying it to limited, virtual currency.


I think we're talking past each other. I'm talking about Anarchy as a rules system, RAW. You're talking about your games. Look, if Anarchy works for you, great. Just, this may be more becuase your group works than because of the specific Anarchy rules. Yes, you can houserule everything if you don't like it. That's the tired old standard response to criticism of game rules systems that are indefensible otherwise. I am, here, not discussing what could be houseruled, or how to adapt given rules to my table. I am talking about a book, called 'Shadowrun Anarchy', and its contents. I am talking about wheter, as written I think these rules make sense, the book is well-structured, the books tone is pleasant or unpleasant, and whether or not experimentally implementing said rules, as written, worked out or not.

You, however, seem all about your experience, and how your group works or not. That's fine, too. Just don't confuse "we houseruled it and now it works fine for us!" with disproving criticism of the product as sold.

Jaid, because of Forum rules, I'll get to you via PM.

Posted by: freudqo Oct 24 2016, 11:36 AM

The idea that you can make a rule-lite shadowrun system that could play with every table is plain wrong, no matter how you think those who don't get it to work are sabotaging themselves.

One of the main reason shadowrun has been and is still praised is because of the intrication of its game mechanics and its universe. Sure you'll find some stupid hacks, such as D20 shadowrun, but no one plays them because no one gives a shit.

Posted by: DrZaius Oct 25 2016, 01:11 AM

A common alternative system is "the Sprawl" based on the apocalypse world system.

Personally, I found a lot to like in Anarchy. Like most SR products; there were some unnecessarily unclear rules; something I hope is cleared up in errata. Overall, SR has always needed a stronger editorial voice to ask, "Does this make sense? Is this unambiguously clear? Does this conflict with something in a different section?"

However, I am extremely excited by the potential of Anarchy. The problem I have always faced as a GM have to do with either prep or character generation. I've got numerous players refer to it as "the shopping game", given how long character generation takes. That, combined with having to plan opposition for three worlds (and realistically 1-2, since most groups punt on 1 of the 3 worlds for complexity sake) make prep a big time sink. I had time to put that effort in when I was younger, I no longer do.

The Matrix and Magic have always felt like they should be handwaved for the coolness factor. This system accomplishes that. Trying to create a specific series of rules to determine a futuristic cyberspace based on an 80s impression of what the internet will be in 100 years is asinine. Instead, having a player ask, "Can I hack that coffee pot to boil over and make the guard leave his post for 5 minutes?" should be a 30 second interaction, not a 20 minute dive into the rulebook while the other players dick around on their phones.

I wanted a narrative based system based deeply in the SR lore. This accomplishes it. Combining all of the various iterations into "Amps" simplifies charactergen, and removes the priority system problem of "no troll faces, no elf bodyguards".

Of course, if you've been playing SR for 20+ years, there are plenty of nits to pick. I don't have many, and those I do I feel comfortable hand-waving because it's a narrative system, and so long as me and my players are cool, there's not a real reason to get bent out of shape over it.

Your mileage can and will vary. I'll point out that this is probably the ideal system for a PbP game, as it introduces agency and narrative control to each player controlling a scene; essentially allowing the game to move forward with each post..

-DrZ

Posted by: Tecumseh Oct 25 2016, 04:23 AM

I haven't played Anarchy yet but I'm eager to. As a GM, I'm excited about Anarchy's open-world possibilities. I like sandbox games where the players can explore the world, and this system seems well-suited for that.

I share some of hermit's concerns about editing and book organization, and DrZaius' opinions about clarity, but in my read-through I didn't come across anything that was irrevocably broken or unplayable.

I don't think that Anarchy is inherently Pink Mohawk. I think it will respond to and reflect the players around the table. If the players are silly, they'll get a goofy game. If the players like subtly and finesse, the game will mirror that. Anarchy can support both equally well and I think Gingivitis' experiences are a testament to that.

It's interesting to me that DrZ says that Anarchy is "probably the ideal system for a PbP game". I've been going back and forth on this question for the last two weeks now. On one hand, I think Anarchy could be a wonderful way for players to compose their thoughts and to write them down just they way they want them rather than depending on the variable quality of spontaneous creativity and extemporaneous speaking. On the other hand, I wonder if other elements of PbP could disrupt the game or undermine its easy flow. For example, would OOC chatter contribute to the story or does it give the other players too much opportunity to speak out-of-turn? Can the GM (or other players) effectively spend plot points - surprise threats, shake it up, malfunction, etc. - even if some of these things are meant to be done mid-narration? Would this result in a constant stream of retconned posts (devaluing the work that players put into those posts), or can these options be effectively executed between narrations so that they help build the story instead of erasing it and redirecting it?

The answers might not be clear until I actually attempt it. I've had a combat-heavy mission rolling around in my head for the better part of a year that I never wanted to run with SR5 because it would turn into an interminable slog of combat turns and initiative passes. Anarchy might be the perfect way to sidestep a lot of those mechanics in favor of focusing on everything else that's going on, while simultaneously given the players the opportunity to indulge in some entertaining cinematic sequences.

Posted by: freudqo Oct 25 2016, 07:40 AM

I have to disagree heavily there. Putting your game in a sprawl with cyberware and corporations doesn't make a shadowrun hack.

Posted by: Sengir Oct 25 2016, 02:55 PM

Character stats are clearly outside the fourth wall, shadowtalk on such elements would hurt the setting far more than a witty comment by a writer. Strength is strength, the the writer is acknowledging the fact that the description is just there because everything else has one, no harm done. Unless the entire section becomes a pun fest or the comments are clearly soapboxing (see "what constitutes an attack") I don't a problem.




Shadowtalk exists because that description is supposed to be an in-universe document which the fictional readers comment on. If it's an in-universe document, then obviously this document was written by an in-universe person with in-universe opinions.

And it's not like gear descriptions with remarks about popularity among certain groups are anything new, they have existed since the original BBB. If "popular among security forces" is fine then why not "extremely unpopular among shadowrunners"?

Posted by: freudqo Oct 25 2016, 03:29 PM

Because saying "extremely popular/unpopular" is stating a common opinion about the 6th world opinion. Saying "no self-respecting shadowrunners would be caught dead on one" sounds like in character stuff. And not a very respectable character in this case…

Posted by: hermit Oct 25 2016, 03:40 PM

By adding "Duh", the autor went beyond stating the blatantly obvious, and into the realm of opinionated commentary best restricted to in-character sections. Also, the section continues to explain that actually, strenth is also Body now, so the sentence is misleading, at least.


But it isn't. Please read the book before commenting?


That would be okay, if a bit assumptive. But it isn't what is written in the book. As this is a discussion about the book's tone, well, tone matters.

Posted by: DrZaius Oct 25 2016, 04:38 PM

So, this in particular was referring to "the Sprawl", not 'a' sprawl, per-say. You are right that it isn't a SR hack so much as it an interpretation of the Gibson universe; but I think it's fair to say that SR is derivative of Gibson. If you are looking for a narrative based cyberpunk game, I think it's not a bad solution. It does not have magic or elves or anything though, some of the unique elements of SR that make it such a great universe to play around in.

-DrZ

Posted by: freudqo Oct 25 2016, 04:48 PM

In this context, it's very not fair to say SR is a derivative of Gibson without saying that it's at the very same time a derivative of Tolkien and stuff. Even admitting a narratived based system would fit shadowrun, leaving magic aside clearly will hinder the "shadowrun" experience. If you're really looking at a narrative based cyberpunk game looking like shadowrun, I guess the actual apocalypse world hack of Shadowrun called "the Sixth World" or something like that would do. But my point was and stands that probably many tables are not looking in such a thing since many tables consider the system in shadowrun to be intricated to its fluff. well… I know that just looking at this "sixth world" hack would give apoplexia to lot of fans.

Posted by: hermit Oct 25 2016, 05:25 PM

Personally, I wasn't impressed by it (it was my first stop to look for a more narrative approach to SR). Too combat-focused, too bizarrely complex in the Matrix. Haven't had a look at the revised rules though.

And it also operated with a GM and limited currency for player 'interruptions', whcih is too close to traditional GM-Player relations for me (IIRC). If I move away from GM dictatorship, I want to move all the way towards a Syndicalist game structure, not just implement a counselory chamber of honorary dukes the GM can have share a bit of their burden while in reality relinquishing none of their power.

Posted by: Sengir Oct 25 2016, 06:05 PM

The line new in Anarchy but from the core book. Please read the base rules of the game before playing smartass while complaining about smartasses?


It's exactly what's written in the book, only in a tone that isn't encyclopedic enough for your expectations.

Posted by: freudqo Oct 25 2016, 06:38 PM

Pretty sure you can avoid sounding encyclopedic without being douchy.

Posted by: hermit Oct 25 2016, 07:21 PM

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Do you have something to contribute besides derision and flamebaiting?


Allright, let's try this again: That quote is not written in-character in the core book. How does that make it palatable as an in-character quote?

Posted by: Gingivitis Oct 25 2016, 08:10 PM

...speaking of tone..

This thread has obviously broken down. There are obviously those that will never try it and those that think it's great for what their table needs.

I suggest those that will try or think it's great should continue to discuss and those that hate it and will never try should avoid the Anarchy threads as best they can.

Posted by: hermit Oct 25 2016, 08:20 PM

And there are those who tried it and found it wanting in one way or the other. You may not think it possible, but it totally is.

Posted by: freudqo Oct 25 2016, 08:48 PM

I suggest that those who want a "let's praise Anarchy" thread start one.

Posted by: Sengir Oct 25 2016, 09:21 PM

Depends, if your definition of "douchy" already includes the slightest snide remark it gets hard to convey a negative image without having to settle on a citation style.

@hermit: Have you ever actually looked at the book? The borders, the sidebars, the gear illustrations, the scan line effect in the background? Of course it's designed to convey the image of an in-universe document.

Posted by: hermit Oct 25 2016, 09:52 PM

It's in character because of sidebars that give rules info? Come on. It's designed with that in mind, maybe, but the gear section of the core book is nowhere near in-character. It's just poorly written.


I suppose we're all nasty posters who can't take some locker room writing, the way real men write. (Kudos medicine man)

Posted by: freudqo Oct 25 2016, 10:28 PM

Mmm. Seems you don't get it. So I'll try with example.

"You might want something different to impress your average ganger"
"At least you won't break any speed limits"
"Maybe choose something else in case you plan to flee anything safe a jogger"

I don't care for such remarks. They are just basic hyperbole on the dodge scoots low performance that may be informative for the new runner or funny for older SR players. Saying your real average runner won't use such an uncanny tool like eva' cos' that would make him feel like a pussy is a different tone that the one I'm used to and pretty ridiculous to say the least.

Posted by: DireRadiant Oct 25 2016, 11:16 PM

Ok, let's see. it's been a while....

breaks out the admin colors

WARNING

Everyone please remember the http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=20411&pid=629616&st=0&#entry629616 regarding personal attacks etc... Read item number 1 in that list.

Once engaged in moderating, moderators will moderate everyone.

Posted by: sk8bcn Oct 26 2016, 08:09 AM

I'm reading this thread and still Wonder: What is Anarchy exactely?

Kind of an alternate ruleset looking at narrativism?
Kind of a light rule book for people that loves easy rules/mechanism?
Does it hve an alternate developpment (supplemets or stuff)
Will SR books be compatible with both ruleset?

What's the exact point of this?

Posted by: hermit Oct 26 2016, 08:44 AM

Yes, Yes, No, Probably; respectively.

The point is to make Shadowrun more accessible, and join the Narrative Play trend. I guess this might kinda work, though my feeling is Anarchy falls short of this ecause rules designers coldn't make the jump from benevolent GM dictatorship to true group-based narrative play.

What's been brought up and what probably does work well is using Anarchy's narrative structure in a PbP game.

Posted by: Medicineman Oct 26 2016, 08:52 AM

Aaaaand
CGL can sell all the Splatbooks both for SR5 and Anarchy (also for SR4A and SR3 for Oldschooler) for a bigger clientel

with a mercantile Dance
Medicineman

Posted by: Sengir Oct 26 2016, 08:10 PM

It's not in-universe because of the content of the sidebars, it's in-universe because of the design the sidebars and everything else are obviously designed to look like an in-universe electronic document.



It would be a different tone if that was the actual description, but the actual description involves does not involve such gender stereotypes or appeals to fragile masculinity. All it does is state that the vehicle has pretty crappy stats, which are seemingly known widely enough that riding it can be damaging to one's reputation.

Posted by: Patrick Goodman Oct 26 2016, 09:41 PM

This is why we can't have nice things....

ETA: Good Lord, I really need to update my sig.

Posted by: freudqo Oct 26 2016, 11:02 PM

Precisely, what it does is saying a shadowrunner's reputation is linked to the vehicle he's riding. That's pretty much bullshit except if you consider all your runs to happen in a moronic fast & furious setting. And that for sure is a different tone to the one I'm used to in shadowrun products (I didn't bother reading 5e to be fair).

To be fair, maybe I shouldn't have used "pussy" in case some gender inequality aware person would feel offended at the idea of associating fragile masculinity to the link between powerful vehicle ownership and reputation. It's not important since the idea remains moronic even without the manly context.

Posted by: Sendaz Oct 26 2016, 11:34 PM

Heh

So will it now include Knight Errant of Errata?

Overall I am liking the concept of Anarchy, and yeah there is still some needed tweaks, though we are still wrapping my head around a few other parts of it, but I am older and slower now so takes longer to learn new tricks.

Posted by: hermit Oct 27 2016, 12:06 AM

So the text is not about its content, but about the layout of the page it is printed on. That doesn't make a bit of sense. Do you even realize that?

Posted by: tete Oct 27 2016, 12:10 AM

I think im mostly with hermit on this one...

I'll probably run it and house rule it, but i really hope CGL forgets this "your way to rpg is wrong" garbage that has become popular. When it was just a handful of indie games it was interesting because it made you think about if you agreed or not but we have those games we dont need every game to be a lockeroom game as stated earlier. I like the idea though, hope we see this type of product going forward.

Posted by: Mantis Oct 27 2016, 07:08 AM

So how does this play compared to the regular game? Faster, more streamlined? How much more or less prep does the GM need to do and how much of that can the players help with?

Posted by: Gingivitis Oct 27 2016, 08:11 AM

I feel like I am about to get jumped on, but here goes:

This plays faster and more streamlined than SR5. Character generation is 15 to 20 minutes and game play goes by roughly twice as fast. Each Turn --a round of Narration, roughly equivalent to an Initiative Pass--goes by faster because each character gets one action or attack (possibly two with Wired Reflexes, etc.). The action is more equitable because, those without Wired, are not pushed back into the dark corners of combat.

The drama is more equitable too because combat-monsters still have a Narration to do, even in social scenes.

The GM needs drastically less preparation. Contract Briefs are one page, and consist of three scenes. Each scene simply describes where they are, what the runners might try to accomplish and what their likely obstacles are. You are encouraged to speed up, change, eliminate, or add scenes as necessary to further the plot of whatever you and your players get up to. You could easily run a scene knowing only 1-2 key pieces of information that you want to be discovered or encountered.

That being said, this game is not for those GMs that want to push their players through the novel that they have written. Imagine how sideways a normal, highly-prepped SR5 game goes, and then add another dimension: Plot Points. Plot Points are what drives the meta-game within Anarchy. They are spent to twist the plot or take actions outside or above Narrations, and they are earned by good role-play or exciting/humorous/dramatic Narrations. This goes back and forth between players and GMs until a story emerges that will likely be very different than the story prepared.

Players help with every aspect of the game except tossing their own opposing dice for tests. With the GM, they decide power levels, character limits, scene pace, plot advancement, and character development.

That being said, this game may not be for those players who are uncomfortable with the burden of story; they will have to pull their own weight in Narrations but there are guides on how to do this. This game may not be for those players who like "shopping" for the best possible swag; gear and player options are boiled down to their base components. Please note that I am not denigrating this style of play; it's just that there are already games for these players (I am one) and they are called: Shadowrun 1, Shadowrun 2, Shadowrun 3, Shadowrun 4, and Shadowrun 5.

[Also Note] For those that dislike this game already, please add, "in general" to every thing I said and end each sentence with, "...at my table."

Posted by: freudqo Oct 27 2016, 08:59 AM

[Please don't take this bad, it's not intended to] What I'd like to understand is how there was an equity problem in the first place. I mean: do such situations as combat and social scenes turn into cybersam of face solo minigames at your table? Or is it just that such characters outshine the others in the specific situations where they are supposed to?

Because in all honesty, nerfing combat monsters in combat and forcing them to act in social scenes is clearly no equitable, that's pretty much unfair. I now see how you get it to be more magerun.



As they are universally recognized as bad GMs, I'm not sure what you're looking at then. Unless you're saying classic SR is pushing towards this kind of GMing, which is false.



I'm really curious here. I can see how it can be fun and all, but I'm wondering if there's not a price. A lot of my pleasure as a player is precisely the thrill of the unknown: the idea that there's a plot to uncover that I don't know, the idea that you don't know if this ganger-looking ork is more than just that and will wipe you on the floor if you headbutt him… And as a GM, I really like to instillate this kind of feeling. Anyway, what I mean is can you get that if the players have such a strong influence on the game pace?

Posted by: Medicineman Oct 27 2016, 10:41 AM

@ Gingivitis

http://shadowhelix.pegasus.de/images/thumb/6/60/Ghoul.jpg/200px-Ghoul.jpg




Nobody hates Railroader more than I do, but to be honest, some of the old Modules/Adventures (Mercurial,DNA/DOA, even Queen Euphoria) are quiet.....railroady .
I'm currently GMing Queen E and I have to change quite some of the Plots to not make the Run a Railroad !
otoh I doubt I could play Queen E with Anarchy....


with a Dance from Above
Medicienman

Posted by: freudqo Oct 27 2016, 11:18 AM

I understand what you mean, but the problem is with the module in this case.

Posted by: Medicineman Oct 27 2016, 12:36 PM

yes and thats why old SR is sometimes pushing the GM to Railroad
so

Yes , there are some Runs/Adventures that have Railroad Elements in them and they are pushing the GM
( I won't be pushed especially not by an old Module/Adventure, but some GMs are ...more pushable than I am, especially younger or not so experienced GMs )

with an affirmative Dance
Medicineman

Posted by: freudqo Oct 27 2016, 01:35 PM

I'm pretty sure in this context we're talking about the game system and game universe. If you're willing to include some of the 1990's written adventures which happen to be railroady to it, I don't follow you. I was replying to a post saying: "That being said, this game is not for those GMs that want to push their players through the novel that they have written.". There's no way you'll find such GM advice in SR1-4. And clearly it's not needed.

Posted by: Gingivitis Oct 27 2016, 02:28 PM

I didn't say it was fair; I said equitable. Is it fair that a character that spent all his/her resources to be a beast gets 4 Initiative Passes and kills all the things, while the face spent all their resources on contacts and a pretty smile gets only one Initiative Pass? Sure. Is it equitable? No.



Novelist GMs (or those running aforementioned railroady modules) will be especially disappointed by Anarchy. Sure, in SR5, a player can muck a story up by not doing a thing or killing a guy too fast. But in Anarchy, they can really do a number, by introducing completely foreign objects into the mix or invalidating whole scenes with better or worse ones.

"That being said" ™, there are rules to make Anarchy a more traditional GM role, and I am sure that would work too.



Everything has a price... (Squeee! I finally got to say it!)

Posted by: freudqo Oct 27 2016, 03:10 PM

I'm not a native speaker, but I was pretty sure the terms are quite synonymous, and a quick look at the internet seems to tell me I was pretty right. How is it not equitable that spending your chargen ressources to master combat lets you outshine in combat people who spent those resources on being good at social interactions?

Anyhow, are you acknowledging that SR:Anarchy is explicitely unfair to people who wants to play combat monster, like I said it was?



Sounds like SR5 is even worse than what I thought. Frankly, I don't get how they departed of the idea that GMs should let player derail and adapt (and try to forecast) when the original plot is derailed.

You know, the problem with railroady GM has always been about the GM being a moron, not the game system. A lot of RPGs (and for sure SR1-4) advise against railroading more or less explicitely.

The problem with the railroady GM is not that the story suddenly ends when you're not doing the thing or killing the guy too early. The problem is that the guy will not actually be dead, or that he will miraculously dodge the bullet, or that his son which is exactly like him will take his place and that finally killing him didn't change anything at the story. Anarchy will not prevent that. Either the railroady GM will bring back the players to his story one way or another whatever objects they bring in, either the players get angry and leave the table. Exactly as it happens in every other RPGs.

As has been pointed by hermit, the only way to be surely ridden of railroady GM is that you actually get rid of the GM.



Fair enough… But then I'll take this as acknowledgement

Posted by: Sengir Oct 27 2016, 04:09 PM

News flash: Outward appearance does have an influence on reputation. Whether you ride a pickup with confederate flag and rifle rack, a kookmobile, a VW Bus, or a car that's average in every way, it leaves a certain impression.


News flash 2: Layout is not just there to provide employment for artists. If you think it doesn't matter, how about Shadowrun fantasy edition, with dirty parchment background #32452 and fancy initials? Or try the new ACM edition, very print friendly in all black text on white background...

Posted by: freudqo Oct 27 2016, 04:17 PM

News flash: I didn't imply the opposite at any time. Thanks for not bending my words if you don't know what to say.

Posted by: Gingivitis Oct 27 2016, 05:50 PM

1) Even synonyms have different connotation and nuances that define them (such as childlike vs childish).

Here I am defining "fair" as "getting what you deserve." You spent all your resources on melting faces, you deserve to melt faces.
Here I am defining "equitable" as "receiving equal treatment." You are not a combat monster but you deserve to participate in this shared story as much as everyone else.

(I'm not going to debate further the meaning of words, btw. The above is what I meant by the words I used.)

2) We all know that Novelist GMs can (and should) run into problems in any setting or system of excessively wrought Plot. That doesn't mean that Novelist GMs don't exist still AND it doesn't change the fact that Anarchy will be particularly punishing to them. Players are meant to guide and reshape the plot.

3) Some are upset here because the players have too much say and will lose their sense of the unknown, and some are upset that there is still even a GM at all. You cannot easily have it both ways but you can compromise and adapt.

There are rules to set a more traditional GM structure; do that if your players don't want a shared storytelling experience but still want the rules light aspect. Also remember that EVERY player gets a share in the story (see equitable) so the discovery of the unknown comes not just from the GM but from the other players too. (Player B: "Plot twist! This ork is really a hard-ass and has friends around the corner!" *spends Plot Point*)

What I have been saying is that there are a lot of ways you can play this and they are built in (or purposely not built in) to the core Anarchy system. You can do what you want with it; it says so on the box.

Posted by: hermit Oct 27 2016, 06:53 PM

Giving everyone a time to shine is a storytelling problem and should be solved with storytelling, not even more unfairly restrictive rules. That's true for any system, be it traditional top-down- or collaborative storytelling.


And you can stop insinuating that everyone who doesn't get all starry-eyed about Anarchy like you is one of them. Don't bother denying it, that is what your novelist GM strawman is all about. Can you please just drop this?


But that is totally different from allowing all players to shape the plot - it's not "you wake up and are now standing in Los Angeles, at midnight, at the top of a sunken skyscraper", it's "actually, the NPC is green, not blue, but otherwise yup Shiawase underwater research station", *spends one of three recoloring points per adventure*, to give a drastic and unwholesome example.

Compare this to MGME, where someone at the table sets a scene with a random table that gives out cues like "Introduce A New NPC - Overindulge - Attention", which then are used by everyone interested to suggest how the scene develops from past scenes. To use your ork eample and my example MGME roll, P1 suggests a bunch of Skraacha appear, and their attention is immediately drawn to the runners who intimidate one of theirs; P2 suggests using a pre-existing enemy who is a Skraacha lieutenant as their leader, and P3 is okay with both and doesn't add anything. The next scene is a battle against Skraacha. Plot developed on without everyone already knowing the full story, and without a GM.

Now that is equitable. That is collaborative plot shaping. Interrupts like Anarchy allows aren't really. And neither are players and the GM in Anarchy equitable. The roles are still far too different.


Yes, Anarchy RAW is a compromise. That is why it makes neither those hesistant about the whole narrative gaming thing and those like me who want an actual narrative system instead of GM lite happy. Surprising, I know, but what is your point?


Yeah. Right. Layout is the entire difference between in-character and out of character texts in shadowrun rulebooks. Riiiiiight.

But now that you mention it, would the fantasy or blank text change whether something is in-character fluff or crunch? If so, give eamples as to how it does!

Posted by: freudqo Oct 27 2016, 08:41 PM

You can define it how you like, they are not receiving equal treatment. You pay a lot to get a combat monster, you get as much action as the face who didn't.

I understand the philosophy you're defending here. I think it's a terrible one. It's just making characters more bland, and it's making worse the fighter character problem I've been pointing at. Forcing him into social situation and having everyone shining in combat is just making the combat character worse off. There's no need for it.



This is actually not true. As long as the GM is different from the players, he's allowed the final say on plot reshaping.

The very fact that Anarchy is advertised as rule lite means that the rules won't protect you from being railroaded.

Honestly, the argument can go both way here.



I'm upset at nothing personally. I'm not asking for rule-lite, GM less games or anything. My point is just that you're advertising anarchy as preventing railroading and I really don't agree, and that the idea of having everyone play a role in combat is sensible, which clearly is not good for the combat character player. My original point is that you can't pretend everyone will have the shadowrun feel playing it since many tables like shadowrun for its intricate rules and fluff.



Ok, let's play on words. I used the phrase "thrill of the unknown". And if you reread my post, you'll understand why you don't assess the raised problem at all by saying the players can come up with some surprise element too.

Say you're reading a thrilling book. Every page you want to read the next one. When you cannot keep your eyes open any more, you hardly get to sleep because you want to know what's next. The plot is getting more intricate, it's unravelling but each time you get more mysteries, and you want to know what's going on but it's only hinted at. And when you finish the book, you realized that there's a next book that's not written yet. What you're proposing me is, "hey, read that fan fiction by someone who read the book just like you". See the problem here? That someone doesn't know the big picture, doesn't know the real mystery to uncover. Well, that's clearly not thrilling.

This is not the discovery of the unknown. This is exquisite corpse. A fun exercise but an exercise still. It's not even a real jump scare…



Said every RPG ever.



Agreed. A lot.

Posted by: Sengir Oct 27 2016, 09:19 PM

Except that time you considered it "pretty much bullshit", but bygones...


Sooo...if you're open to the possibility of vehicles having a bad rep, and you accept that such a bad rep can affect the standing of the owner, what exactly was your problem with having vehicles people don't want to be caught dead on?

Posted by: freudqo Oct 27 2016, 10:22 PM

The first point is of course that the idea of the average shadowrunner giving a shit about his reputation once dead is laughable.

But seriously, you know, there was a context on the quote you used, which was that shadowrun is not set in a moronic fast and furious universe. Owning a vehicle can affect your reputation among some categories of populations. Such as saying average sprawlers or jet setters will find you stupid on a dodge scoot. Since of course sprawlers and jet setters are clearly not the majority of your encounters and the people hiring you, most shadowrunners won't give a shit about using a scoot for their everyday tasks, let alone being found dead on one.

As has already been said, you can make a lot of witty sentence saying some people will find your dodge scoot is ridiculous. Like in real life, these people are moron that are bad at evaluating people's value. The people who will really matter won't care what you riding but evaluate you based on your past acts and actual abilities. This includes the Johnson, the fixers, mercenaries, cops, magic group and whoever you usually meet.

Or actually, those people didn't care in SR1-4. Suddenly, in Anarchy it seems that Johnson is Dom Torreto.

Posted by: Gingivitis Oct 28 2016, 12:56 AM

Called it.

SOME of you forgot the add the "...at my table" to the end of everything I said.

@ Hermit: It seems like you wanted Anarchy to be a GMless system, and Anarchy did not deliver. I agree. It also never purported to be one, so I feel that is a wash. This is obviously not the game for you and it seems like you already have the game for you. I am glad you have one.

@ freudgo: I reread all of your posts and, frankly, I have literally no idea what you wanted from Anarchy or any other game (apparently not even SR5?). I hope you find a game that you like soon. MAYBE it could be Anarchy if you gave it a shot. Maybe not.

@ people who think I am "Starry-Eyed" with Anarchy, I submit to you my first post in this thread:



If you saw how many posts I made in the errata forums, you would also know I am not starry-eyed, I am hopeful.

"That being said, " ™ I AM excited about Anarchy because I finally get to play in the setting I love with people I love because they finally were willing to give it a shot. That only happened because of Anarchy. And it turned out great...

...at my table.

Posted by: Patrick Goodman Oct 28 2016, 02:27 AM

So if anyone's curious about why I don't come in here very often anymore...it's threads like this.

Posted by: Sendaz Oct 28 2016, 02:49 AM

Gee, not exactly hard when you flamebait like that.

Both sides in this have been nipping at the other so I can not say either side is blameless, but please don't try acting the martyr in this.
You wouldn't get this past FJ on the ShadowGrid without getting at least a warning, why do you feel it's acceptable here?

And for the record, before you chime in with some back hand comment about MY play preferences, I also happen to like Anarchy and have been looking forward to it for some time.
But even as an experienced SR player some parts of it do leave me scratching my head and won't deny that I am still working through some bits to try and smooth it out for better play.
Which is why I am here as well as the other forums, looking at both sides to sift through the bickering to find those gems to help me refine my game and make a better experience for my group.



No, you give people the impression you might be a bit starry-eyed when you open http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=41711where you very much give one the feeling they are only to post praise (it's in the thread title afterall) and any other opinions/issues/concerns need not apply.
If this thread is soooo horrible, why are you still here?
*looks in at the other thread*
Yeah, not a lot of chatter there, funny that.

In case you haven't noticed, DS doesn't play yes-man well.

It was built by folk who are passionate about the game and they poke and prod at something like a sore tooth, not because they are bitter but because they want to find the best out of it.

Do they kvetch a lot? Sure.

Will they nitpick at the littlest thing? Guilty.

Can they sometimes be too opinionated and a bit of a grognard set in their ways? Absolutely.

But when you need something Samsonite tested to see how things shake out, they are the 800lb gorilla the game devs should have been using to stress test the product prior to release, rather than the weak sauce quality control we have seen to date in several of CGL products.

Is CGL the only culprit in this? Of course not. Many games, both PnP and electronic have fallen into the cycle of churning out incomplete product to keep afloat with the intent to fix it later, whether in errata or in future editions.
It's a cutthroat business, not too unlike that of college professors whose manta is Publish or Perish. Except there is no equivalent of tenure for a gaming company, so there is never any resting on their laurels unfortunately, because you are only as good as the next projected item on the horizon.

And yes, we are grateful there are folk like Patrick Goodman and Co. who are sifting through the mounds of chaff to set things aright once more via the errata, thanks largely in part to community input like your own and others on the errata threads.

Will everyone ever be able to agree on things? Probably not, but we can agree to disagree without the subtle and not so subtle jabbing at each other.

We, and by we I mean all of DS, is better than this, though spirits help me it doesn't seem like it some days.



*sighs*
And there is that to top off my night.

Posted by: DeathStrobe Oct 28 2016, 03:52 AM

Yes. You can spend a plot point to add to a scene, so you can totally do that as a GM or as even another player.

Posted by: tete Oct 28 2016, 04:02 AM

Not disagreeing with you but its also not for those of us who make it up as we go. I literally write a brief "A new drug hits the street called Jazz Hands and Orks are ending up in the hospital" and go... I also have a list of NPCs that grows over the campaign. Its all on the fly

[edit] Anarchy reminds me alot of VtR especially 2.0 - some really good neat ideas are in there, certainly more like a rule set I want to see but someone wasnt really ready to push it to the limits and so its got some old baggage still hanging on, which for this old gamer I got the older editions and the house rules I already wrote... Hopefully it does well enough to get an Anarchy 2.0 someday. My only real complaint compared with SR1-5 is that arrogant language. Lets be honest every edition of shadowrun has a few warts.

Posted by: Gingivitis Oct 28 2016, 07:33 AM

I would honestly like to make it clear that I was not insinuating that anyone here had a bad play style. The style that I was speaking against was the novelist GMs, which were "universally recognized as bad GMs", by freudgo (so no disagreement there) and Hermit prefers GM-free games (so, obviously not a railroader there). What I was doing was answering the question of:

and I still feel like the answer is: If you prep too much it will hurt because your players get to help a lot.

@Sendaz, I agree. I should not have played the martyr there. I probably should have stopped trying to defend my position about 72 posts ago. I started that other thread because I honestly want to talk to someone, anyone, about something positive. Because if someone asks me if it is a good game, I am going to say yes.

Posted by: freudqo Oct 28 2016, 07:37 AM

Basically a good old SR3 is fine for me, but nice try on shifting the point. You know, the goal is to discuss anarchy. You're praising it for being what it's not, and we just disagree.

Anarchy is not a system that will prevent railroading, it's not a system which will work exactly like your table want, and apparently it quite doesn't give you the thrill of the unknown.



Well actually this discussion expanded a bit. Turns out no, you cannot really get the thrill of the unknown, suspense or surprise. The thrill comes from the fact that something exist and you have to discover what it is. Doesn't work if the player next to you just make up something from the story he knows exactly like you.

Posted by: Blade Oct 28 2016, 07:56 AM

Narrative games where players can impact the story (or even that plays without a GM) don't have to be better or worse than classic games with an almighty GM.
It's a different approach, that gives a different flavor and a different experience.

Some people prefer one, other prefer the other, there's no use in trying to argue the superiority of one over the other.

Posted by: Sendaz Oct 28 2016, 09:05 AM

I should not have been snippy in my tone either, there are better ways to address everyone and I do apologize.

And I have been looking at your Anarchy resources and finding some interesting bits there, so thank you for putting that up for us and others to tap.

Posted by: Sengir Oct 28 2016, 01:46 PM

Because of course, only hardcore tuners have ever made jokes about crappy Ladas and their supposed clientele...in fact, hardcore tuners in their plastic-ardoned Hondas are another stock character.

Posted by: freudqo Oct 28 2016, 02:14 PM

Nope. But only them will think the guy getting out of the lada doesn't know his shit because he's getting out of the Lada. You seem to mistake reputation with style.

But actually, you're shifting the point by forgetting the book is making a general statements that encompass all possible runners. Book says every shadowrunner will really care about getting a showy vehicle. That's never been true of shadowrun before, that's a crappy concept, and that's ridiculously disempowering for a game where chargen usually promised you a lot more versatility than that.

Posted by: hermit Oct 28 2016, 03:12 PM

Been running my games like that for a decade now, too. And not because of some lofty player-centered fun concept (though that, of course, sounds nice). It's self-preservation. See, if you spend a day's work preparing a module-style adventure, statting all NPCs, making up locations and everything, and an intricate plot, you'll have wated an entire day's work five minutes into the average game, because a player had an idea that you didn't see coming. It's okay for players to have that. Railroading them would suck for everybody. So I wing it and bring only a vague concept, a few core NPC, and a few scenarios I will probably use to the game, fill in the rest as it comes, reacting and acting on player cues.

What I hoped Anarchy would be is something akin to MGME. Now, that may have been me misunderstanding the premise. I honestly could care less about simplified rules - that becomes dumbed down to my taste really fast and I never was intimidated by middle school maths. I do care - a lot - about disappearing the position of the GM. For a very simple reason - usually, I am the GM, and I don't really want to. Nobody else does. GMing always is the more tedious and less rewarding part of the game (not unrewarding, but less rewarding). You get no thrill of discovery, you have to keep track of a lot of stull, have to smooth the plot's wrinkles in as underhanded a way that nobody notes, on the spot, and usually, you're a kindergartener, too.

Now, on its own, Anarchy probably works well enough. It's clunkier than FATE, and I still don't get why characters need tags when they have cues, and I dislike how this, again, favors the magical over the mundane, but it's probably playable. It's just not for me. As freudqo wrote, it does remind me of nWoD: A lot of good intentions and ideas, but lacks the boldness and ambition to live up to them. A game like an EU Guideline. Nowhere near as bad as the press it gets, but it could have been far better had it not been watered down by a lack of courage.

Oh yeah, and the tone it is (in parts) written in.


It's the layout, obviously.

Posted by: freudqo Oct 28 2016, 09:11 PM

Hehe. I've felt like this very often after a few sessions of GMing and finishing a campaign.

And though, each time I get to play a PC, I want to GM again. Some kind of circle I guess.



More seriously, this weird blurring of in and out of character writing style (someone said opinionated I think…) reminds me of what Gingivitis said at the beginning about the problem with this game being for people who already know the SR universe. Someone used to shadowtalk might feel like he's reading some of it and add the mental "hey" Glyph was talking about. But a beginner will perceive it as a universe where you actually shouldn't buy a Dodge Scoot.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 28 2016, 10:35 PM

Which I find a bit sad (for the community), because you have a lot to offer, Patrick.

Posted by: hermit Oct 28 2016, 10:53 PM

Heh. It's more subtle with me. I just tend to take control of scenes if I don't consciously keep myself back (and prod my players to contribute too, because they instantly snap back into consumer player mode too). Will need some work, I guess. But at least it removes the need for GM KArma and GM payment so the GMs characters aren't totally neglected and can't play well with the regulars even if the GM can catch a break.

Posted by: DrZaius Oct 29 2016, 12:49 AM

So at the risk of getting involved, I'll add a few more comments as to what I think are the merits of SRA.

Namely, after playing RPGs for.. longer than I'd care to do the math on right now, I think that a system LIKE SRA is what I have always wanted for the Shadowrun Universe.

Thinking about a game like D&D 4th, which is essentially a collaborative wargame (NOT a true RPG system), there's very clearly defined roles and rulesets to follow. This is neither here nor there, but it does lead to players getting pigeonholed / stuck in ruts in what they do (e.g. "I guess I use my at-will power to attack the hobgoblin").

SR5 is similar, except the rules are way too complicated to parse easily. If you actually followed all of the rules laid out (which has never happened in any Shadowrun game I've ever played, by the way), you'd be bogged down in a morass of a ridiculously complex system. That, combined with the priority system saying THIS character can do A, B, but not C or D, and THAT character can do C and D, but not A or B, means that players have a lot of "phone time" while the specialists talk to the GM during their time to shine.

That's boring and lame, and not at all how actual humans interact. If I could wave a wand (or power focus?) and make running the matrix at the speed of thought the matrix happens at, perhaps I'd feel differently. However, the subsystems of SR5 means that no matter who the spotlight is focused on, there are others at the table it ISN'T.

Enter SRA. It's not perfect; it's not necessarily what I would have done, there are editing errors, etc. etc. etc. So what. I want a narrative based game that all players can contribute to.

Some other people in the thread are complaining this means players who are heavily invested in combat aren't stars compared to their "face" peers. I suppose that's accurate. I don't really care. I don't like that players feel like they need to sit on their hands during one of the phases of the run because their numbers aren't optimized for that section. I WANT the Troll to weigh in on the negotiation, and say they need extra 'yen for more grenades. I think the face should be able to perform a trickshot and save the gunbunny from the guard that he didn't see. I want the hacker to describe something cool with technology and for it to just HAPPEN, because trying to figure out how it happens is needlessly complex and not necessary. Same for the mage - it's Magic for frak's sake; it should be whatever a player wants it to be.

SRA is the system I wish I had been playing these past 20 years; and building stories with my fellow players instead of getting stuck trying to optimize characters, or have arguments about the matrix or drones or magic or a million different things.

So in summation; I like this system. I think it's a great way to open the world of Shadowrun to more players who otherwise wouldn't see it (and be real; the complexity of Shadowrun has always caused it to be limited in size compared to it's competitors). If there are issues with specifics of the system, I encourage others to create homebrewed versions and adjust it to their particular table.

My advice to everyone is to stop attacking strawmen, or argument semantics (literal semantics, as in the meaning of words), and embrace this for what it was intended as; an open narrative based system meant to eliminate the chaff and help create cool stories.

-DrZ

Posted by: DeathStrobe Oct 29 2016, 12:59 AM

What's the difference? At what point do you honestly feel like someone adding a new wrinkle to the plot, and the GM making it up before the section matters? Either way it gets revealed at the same point in the narrative, assuming it has some degree of logically consistency.

Honestly, I think you're just looking for a reason to not like giving players control of the narrative and being able to shape it or something.

Posted by: hermit Oct 29 2016, 01:22 AM

The extra KARMA.


I think so too! But Anarchy makes this unnecessarily complex to impossible. Riggers seem to have it worst, having to decide between all the stuff they need for their core ability and one or two (tops) side amps to not sit on their hands in non-rigging situations.


It kinda looks like it, but scratch the surface and it's hardly any different from traditional GM-player relations, unfortunatly. And this is difficult to rule away with a quick house rule without changing core mechanisms entirely. Better use MGME and SR4A or SR5, or a FATE or PbtA hack if you're looking for simplified rules.

Posted by: DrZaius Oct 29 2016, 01:59 AM

I consider this a feature, not a bug. Every player comes to the table with some other asinine impression of what their character's time is worth; countless hours have been spent in negotiation without getting to the meat of the run. Having the Johnson slip you a piece of paper (or in this case, an encrypted text) can preserve the concept of the negotiation without getting bogged down in minutiae.


I guess where I come off on this is that the abstract nature of the rules, and the fact that archetypes and races have been untied even more, that I think a player can attempt most of these things without having to worry if their numbers are perfect for that situation. Riggers DO seem to need the most love (as always ) but I don't think it's necessarily impossible. One quick note: I haven't gotten a chance to actually play anarchy yet; so I don't want to claim any authority here. ON THE SURFACE it looks like it would work.


It could have gone farther, sure. However, I think it definitely leans towards the player agency side, especially compared to SR5 and more traditional systems. Of course, other games do the narrative method better, I won't argue that, but SR is in it's history a GM run game; I think going that extra step may be a bridge too far. I'd like to give it a few months and see if people think the way it's setup is cumbersome, or if the 'traditional' roles seem to make sense.

-DrZ

Posted by: Gingivitis Oct 29 2016, 07:59 AM

+1

@DrZ - I have two groups now running SRA and both have riggers (one dwarf, one troll). They both work just fine. The extra attacks and movement that drones offer make them formidable in combat and useful in narrative/non-combat. Shadow Amps and Karma are the great equalizers in Anarchy. Where they need work is in vehicle rules, specifically: durability (does it act as a Condition Monitor or not?), and how the Matrix interacts with vehicles (can drones take Matrix damage or not?). It would be nice if it was clearer, but you can play it either way (I have).

Posted by: Sengir Oct 29 2016, 10:41 AM

It says that "no runner wants to be caught dead" on this vehicle, which is
1.) Clearly a hyperbolic, subjective statement and not a statistic.
2.) Not an indication that the extreme opposite has to be true. "Nobody wants to wear rags like these" does not equal "everybody wants a $10000 suit".


Yeah, the layout doesn't include an all-caps "hey, in case you wonder why we have that background and everything" which some people seem to need, so I guess you can blame it on the layout.

Seriously, there are points which are simply not worth discussing.

Posted by: freudqo Oct 29 2016, 11:05 AM

To answer your second question, at the point I explained several times in this topic: the GM has the big picture, the players don't. So I have no way of knowing if the GM is making stuff up or if the last encounter is linked to the general plot. Hence the thrill.

That's the first thing that makes your comment on my behaviour irrelevant. The second thing is that you mistake narrative for plot here. The players are shaping the narrative in every RPG where you're not railroaded. The very idea of every RPG is that your actions as a PC affect the world. Having the players not being able to change the universe or general plot past their characters' actions is entirely different than saying you don't want players to control the narrative.



1) That's kind of our point since the beginning. Clearly a subjective statements has nothing to do there. If it was a hyperbolic statement based on an objective stuff, no one would care.
2) Your comparison is not valid. The dodge scoot is not a rag. It's casual clothes. Sure wearing casual working suits or clothes will get you jeers from sprawlers. Then reread what you wrote using "casual clothes" .

Posted by: freudqo Oct 29 2016, 11:43 AM

How is that incompatible with the idea that the face is still the star of negociation and the gunbunny the star of the fight? How is that even impossible in SR1-5? Do your PCs really forbid the troll to talk during negociation phases? Did you read the post I was answering (since I'm "other people")? The idea was that it was unfair that the sam had more actions during fight and he HAD to weigh in during social interaction.

Posted by: hermit Oct 29 2016, 12:49 PM

It's really easy to give player more agency than SR5 does. SR1-4 did that already. I mean, I see your point, but it still is, from my experience and my expectations, underwhelming enough that I won't bother with it, especially since it enforces classes lite by favor of its (for a shadowrun game) extremely restrictive chargen rules and further entrenches the magerun problem. I am, however, not sure the authors even consider magerun to be a problem.

Posted by: Sengir Oct 30 2016, 11:43 PM

Yes, but apart from the claim that in-universe descriptions are not supposed to be there, you (and hermit) also claimed that the statement was somehow douchy and/or somehow offensive, and I'm still not seeing it.


The "voice" of the description clearly considers the Scoot to be an inferior piece of drek. Obviously, going from a different premise leads to a different conclusion.

Posted by: DrZaius Oct 31 2016, 12:50 AM

It's clear this (and previous books) were written with a "voice". Some people's subjective opinions didn't care for it. I'm not positive it's worth rehashing much beyond that. You either like it, feel neutral about it, or dislike it. The "voice" continued in anarchy, which again, some people didn't like. I think that's a valid criticism, even if I don't mind the voice.

I'm on a phone so I'll make it brief, but I think certain people in the thread like anarchy, some dislike it for not going far enough, others have a beef with certain implementations. I'm curious about the issues people see in the third group, because I am having trouble seeing your POV.

-DrZ

Posted by: hermit Oct 31 2016, 08:49 AM

I cited two examples of the book's voice's douchiness, and this was none of them. I never claimed this specific quote to be offensive, but inappropriately in-character (written in a voice, if you will) in rules text, no matter the text's layout. Clearly, we don't agree on whether the text or the layout takes precedence in the nature of the text, though.

Posted by: freudqo Oct 31 2016, 11:43 AM

And I said since the beginning that if the statement was clearly in character, I wouldn't care. There are plenty of shadowtalks using this douchy tone. Honestly, if you don't see how someone despising people for riding a convenient scoot is a douchy attitude, I can't do anything for you. And since the problem has always been about it being supposed to be out of character, I'd say you're still shifting the point.



The reproach is precisely that this voice changed of tone. It didn't "continue". It changed of tone.

The narrator used to sound like a veteran runner, not a poser. That's to say that instead of imposing his prejudice on you and being despising (That's how strong you are, duh), he would try to tell you to give up on your prejudice before entering the shadows. Things are not what they seem to be, they're unpredictable, be careful cause the geek with his glasses could bring the hell of four elementals on you, the little cute elf will cut you with a monofilament before you blink while the ugly troll might actually kindly introduce you to the people in the pub. He was just an old guy who sounded like he had seen too much to pretend he knew much.

Posted by: Sengir Nov 2 2016, 05:55 PM

Again, your argument is built from the implicit premise that the Scoot is actually a decent ride, and "the voice" only dismisses it because it doesn't meet his douchy standards.

Posted by: freudqo Nov 2 2016, 07:11 PM

SR1: "An electric intra-city scooter"
Rigger Black Book: "A perfect recreational ride, and a great emergency vehicle to carry in your trunk*. The Dodge Scoot is designed to operate under pedal or electric power, and GridLink access is built in. Available in a wide range of designer colors and custom paint jobs, and corporate logos are a specialty. The Scoot is just the thing for short-distance suburban or recreational travel, or corporate-compound hops." Shadowtalk comment: "For munchkins only".
SR2: "An electric intra-city scooter"
Rigger 2: "This electric-powered scooter is perfect for whizzing down city streets"
SR3: "This electric-powered scooter is perfect for whizzing down city streets"
Rigger 3: "The Scoot is an electrically powered scooter. Designed for urban commuting, the Scoot is an inexpensive option to public transportation that is affordable and ecologically friendly. Among young upwardly mobile urban professionals, it is the best selling bike on the market."
SR4: "This electric-powered scooter is perfect for whizzing down city streets. Compact and affordable, the Scoot is available in a wide variety of colors, and the plastic chassis can be shop-modified to customer specs."

I seem to remember SR4 didn't have a rigger 4, and I quite don't remember nor care what SR5 is saying. My implicit premise that the Scoot is a decent and convenient ride has thus actually been a fact in 4 editions of shadowrun. It merely gets an ironic shadowtalk comment in RBB that's certainly not equivalent to the description in SRA.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Nov 2 2016, 08:33 PM

I have had characters actually use the Scoot. Not only is is Cheap, it is ubiquitous in the city. You blend with the masses and do not stand out.
Of course, if you are using it to run away from Corporate Security, you may have issues.

Posted by: Nath Nov 2 2016, 08:47 PM

Posted by: freudqo Nov 2 2016, 10:09 PM

I could have said exactly the same thing. And I'd bet you'd call them shadowrunners. And they were self-respecting. But to be honest, if you planned to use it to run away from Corp Sec, you had issues from the beginning .

@Nath: Thanks. Glyph is the first one who mentioned it here, and I mixed up if it was from SRA or SR5. I really like that they quite say the opposite about it than what first edition said. Tells a lot.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Nov 2 2016, 10:18 PM

Shadowrunners... Check. Self-Respecting... Check (mostly). Never plan to run away on a Scoot, you are going to be very disappointed.

Posted by: freudqo Nov 2 2016, 10:46 PM

In the meanwhile, if you didn't plan and that's your only solution, you also might end up nicely surprised if you make it. If.

Posted by: Sendaz Nov 4 2016, 08:35 AM

Submitted by Danny Yūn‎ in the Shadowrunners' Union FB:

When your Street Sam never forgets his humble roots:

When he started this thing, he could only afford a Dodge Scoot. Now that he's solved his cash flow problems, is it a Yamaha No-Dachi? Harley Davidson Scorpion?

That Scoot treated him right, now it's time to return the favor!

Murderhobos grow up from that Street lifestyle, plain armor jacket and an uzi to sleek Katanas, Sleeping Tigers, Ares Alphas, and Monofilament bolas, riding right at death on a completely yerzed-out death scooter.

Yerzed Out r4
High Lifestyle Upgrades
Alarm System 3 (with a Dread/DMSO mixture)
Extra Seating (that electric scooter sidecar, ya'll!)
Concealed Forward Facing Weapon Mount sporting an Ares Alpha
Chameleon Coating
Signature Masking r4
Gecko Tips for Small Vehicles

Dodge Scoot goes for 3000 nuyen. He threw in another 30,000.

Ride in style.


https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14907127_10154736502478556_444336174317682816_n.jpg?oh=36f6f98c24cbf39356b42a029cdde2e6&oe=58D0DE38
--------------------------

So not unlike Life, you get out of it what you put into it.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Nov 4 2016, 02:09 PM

Awesome, Sendaz...
Ever thought of working for one of my Subsidiaries?