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

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.

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

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"?

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…

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Pretty sure you can avoid sounding encyclopedic without being douchy.

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?

...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.

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

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

breaks out the admin colors

WARNING

Everyone please remember the TOS regarding personal attacks etc... Read item number 1 in that list.

Once engaged in moderating, moderators will moderate everyone.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.