I actually had a similar discussion with a friend about WoW when he said "it's just a time grind".

I pointed out to him that he had just spent 3 solid weeks of all of his awake time playing Soul Caliber IV.

In truth almost any hobby or passion is a time grinding waste to those who don't share the joy of it. To those who do, it's time well spent.

I quit WoW 2 years ago because I saw it as a time grind... then I played two other MMORPGs, and an MMORTS as well as SR Missions, D&D 3.5 LG, and now D&D 4.0 LFR... they're all time sinks. When I came to realize that... and also realize that reading a book or watching TV can also be classed as just other time grinds to those who don't enjoy that activity... I went back and re-opened my WoW account.

When complaints are made against a game being a "time grind" it's usually due to the game mechanics/story being extra-ordinarily repetitive. The anti-WoW argument of "do you do anything else but kill things to level up?" is a valid one. WoW is fun as a virtual-social activity but I can get together with friends for that.

Actually, FASA/Fan Pro has done a tremendous job with not screwing people out of their money. The industry standard between editions is about 2-4 years. They went 6 years between 2nd and 3rd edition (and really, 3rd was basically just a lot of little updates for problems with the mechanics), and 7 years between 3rd and 4th.

Compare to D&D, 3 years between D&D 3e and 3.5, 5 years between 3.5e and 4e.

Between 2nd edition and 4th, Shadowrun ran for 13 years with basically the same mechanics - all 2nd and 3rd edition books were basically interchangeable. That's comparable to World of Darkness, who also went for 13 years, but was maintaining something like 8 different lines of books.

Shadowrun also produced a lot fewer junk books in the interim.

I have never felt cheated by FASA/Fan Pro, or that they're ever just using 'gimmicks' to separate me from my money. Their updates are generally well-needed and well-spaced. Even as an SR3 player, I won't argue that it was time for an update... I just don't think SR4 did the sort of updating I was hoping for.

Not to mention the changes that Fanpro/CGL made with the setting in SR4 is nothing compared to what WotC did to Forgotten Realms. SR fans complain about the timeline advancing 6 years and losing a couple under-developed NA countries? FR moved ahead 100 years, had the entire surface of the planet rearranged, and every country essentially wiped out. I think SR4 did alright.

Also, with CGL now having the novel rights, I think we might start seeing some books released that cover some of those "hand-waved" events that some people are complaining about. I believe it was mentioned at one time that the shakeup in the Council of Princes was going to be the subject of a novel. I also have a feeling that the fall of General Saito will also be covered in a novel (or novels), but that's just a hunch.

Yeah, the Forgotten Realms thing wasn't an update, it was a rape. It was like what the Shadowrun game did to Shadowrun-- take away all the story, reduce it to one big corporation versus one big anti-corporate rebel group, and have them play capture the flag all day for world supremacy. By comparison, even though 4th changed the game mechanics and brought the world forward in technology, it is easily classifiable as an update (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

This is where I stick my head out for the guillotine, right?

...I like 4e Forgotten Realms. It's the first time I've ever wanted to play FR. Like. Ever.

I also like and enjoy 4e DnD.

<master shake>OH GOD NO</master shake>

*shrugs* I'm not going to start a D&D flame war on a Shadowrun board.

This is the first time I have logged onto Dumpshock since RC was released on PDF. The direction that SR was going has sickened me to the point where I don't care about SR4 anymore. The rules are poorly written and horribly play tested. It can't be played with just the basic book, but on the other hand you can't NOT use all the other books and be fair to all the builds.

My friends and I have decided to convert SR to D&D 4th as an alternative to using FASA/FP/CGL rulesets. We are having fun with vanilla D&D 4th and have found some awesome ways of translating that into SR.

See now I don't understand how you could hate SR4 and think D&D 4 is awesome... to me DD4 feels like pen and paper Warcraft. I have Warcraft to feel like Warcraft. At least in SR 4 you get to chose what guns/spells/skills you have and how to use them. The de-balling of D&D 4 is what turned me off to it.

If they ever did that with Shadowrun.... "Your a Street Sam, you can only use Colt M-23's or Ares Pred's nope nothing else, and no you can't duel wield, only Adepts can dule wield."

while I see you point when I play dnd I play it for the warcraft fell without the dumb warcarft players. so I like 4ed

I like sr 4 - I like dnd4 - I liked 3.5dnd(less then I like 4ed now)

dont think I would like dnd4 as sr4.
but I like reading system so If you have your notes on what you did to dnd4 to make it sr I would like to see. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

also talking about limiting wepons base on class dnd has been doing that since it came out nothing new there.

There are three classes in SR4. Magicians, Technomancers and Normals. With Normals having the most things they cannot do.
There may be many specialties, too many to list, but the mechanics left these three distinctions.

Do you mean CP2020-type "older cyberpunk", or SR2/SR3-type "older cyberpunk"? 'Cause I turn 21 in ten days. I missed the punk rock era.

...Then again, my current playlist is Social Distortion, Fugazi, Minor Threat, Bad Religion, and The Vandals. You could be onto something there...(IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

I like D&D 4. It's a fantastic casual RPG. Chargen is really fast, and combat is fast paced and (relatively) strategic. What's good about it is that you don't need to plan your char out to level 20, if you simply pick the abilities you like as you advance, you will be good and enjoy the game. Fun is the only measure of an RPG. For people who have tried it and didn't have fun, you're totally licensed to say it's not good. But for those who have enjoyed it, you have just as much right to say it's a good game. That's why all the naysaying makes me go (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif) . If you don't like a game, no amount of criticizing it will make people who enjoy playing it stop. It's fine to let us know what you like or dislike about it, but I'm getting pretty sick of people trying to make each other feel stupid for enjoying this game or that game.

My group and I have all the rulebooks for D&D4E. We've read the rulebook and we're not impressed. It reads like PnP WOW. I'm the only one that has suggested giving it a crack to test it but we have a 3.5 campaign we've been playing for around 2-3 years now and another one we've started but haven't really touched and we're not likely to change just yet and we love customising our characters to the nth degree.

- J.

With all due respect, you started this thread.

And this being dumpshock, that's not a lot of respect ;P

In truth though, I think you're wrong. Most of us can quantify what it is about a particular game that makes it fun - and from there, we can determine which games best meet our particular needs.

Your comment is like saying, "well, I love hummers, I just have fun with it, driving over mountains and such". If I come up and point out a Jeep Wrangler can handle mountains better, because they're lighter, they can do it quicker and more safely, plus cost less and save more on fuel, it should be pretty clear that, if the only reason you like hummers is because they tackle mountains, you may want to consider a more appropriate vehicle.

Now, if you say that you like hummers because they're a big artificial penis which weighs four tons and drinks gas like it's going out of style, or simply that you like how they look or you're loyal to the brand name, well, I guess I can't really argue with you.

But if you have a reason to play, you have a reason to like one game over another, and it CAN be argued, and if you intentionally play a game that doesn't give you en as much enjoyment, I can call you stupid for it.

You're not alone. D&D 4e is the first time I've ever played Forgotten Realms. I don't think it's a bad product at all.

Maybe the Realms should quit dressing like a slut.

I wasn't talking about you Blacken. I you've expressed your opinion politely, and it's a valid one. I just don't think there's much basis for people to claim objectivity here. There have been pages and pages of argument about whether a variable TN system is better than an fixed one, bringing in math and such, and neither side ever won the argument. When both sides have good arguments, it's just arrogant and pointless to insist that only one side has a valid point. I think that SR4 is a good enough game that both sides should be able to concede that it's a reasonably good game, but it's not going to be everyone's favorite.

Clearly objectivity is appropriate in some cases, like discussing whether a Jeep or a Hummer is a better off-road vehicle. But there are only so many variables in a question like that. It's an objective question with an objective answer. But when you ask whether a Jeep or a Hummer is just plain "better," that depends entirely on what you want in a car. If you want to look like a big man, then of course the Hummer is better. Two sides can't argue over the "one right answer" when they're not even arguing about the same criteria. If I think the Hummer is better because it makes me feel big, and you think the Jeep is better because it goes off road better, then we're not even arguing about the same thing. So too, if people look for different things in a game, there is no way for them to tell each other whether a game is good or bad. Before we can agree if a game is good or bad, we must first agree on all (or substantially all) of what makes a game good. Until then, the question is wholly subjective because all of its criteria are undefined, none are uniform between debaters.

ugh, did you just validate forge theory? im out...

Yeah, I left 4th edition D&D for Shadowrun, The healing rules in D&D are hugely limiting on what type of dungeons and therefore stories I can run (try running a trap based dungeon with little combat) and characters are pretty damn generic in terms of what they can do and can't do. The leveling system being a limiter on what monsters I can use when is an issue on any level based game really.

i play pen and paper RPGs because i like the ability to be creative. D&D 4th edition appears to have been designed with the intent of punishing, discouraging, and restricting player creativity in order to make the game run more quickly.

now don't get me wrong, i fully approve of the goal of making the game run quickly. i just think they made some really stupid choices along the way there, such that i may as well be playing a computer RPG as play 4th edition. heck, depending on the CRPG, you can probably allow *more* creativity than 4th ed D&D allows. i prefer to have more choices than "nuke A, which is just like all my other abilities but does fire damage and knocks down the target for some unfathomable reason, or nuke B, which is just like all my other abilities but does lightning damage and disorients the target for 1 round"

D&D 4e feels like a video game because they are planning for it to be one (essentially). WotC is working on a "computer tools suite" that will allow D&D to be run over the internet, so all of the rules needed to be conducive to that goal, such as putting all movement and ranges onto a "grid." I believe the company is wanting to attempt to grab some of the WoW RPG market and get them playing "traditional" RPGs.

I think I made the tangent that slid this all off into tangent land. Sorry mods!

OTOH,

Is quite possibly one of the funniest things I've ever read.

I disagree with you. I think the threads were well settled. SR3 has more granularity and more flexible mechanics, SR4 is simpler to understand and quicker to operate.

If you want a quick, transparent system, or a system with a shallow learning curve, definitly, SR4 is the way to go. If you want a system that can do more, or carries more statistical accuracy or canm operate under a wider range of circumstances, SR3 is the way to go (speaking of mechanics only). If you want a setting based more on modern technology, SR4. If you like the 80s, enjoy classic cyberpunk, or like the alternate history future, go with SR3. I think everyone agreed that SR4 is probably better for most people who are completely new to the system, or scared off by SR3s complexity.

The big debate was 'what defines Shadowrun' and, based off of that, which of the two versions is closer to that original vision. Defining identity is almost always a difficult task.