I'm not sure I understand your concern. SR1 was great when it was all we had. I fell in love with the setting and themes but the rules were always dragging us down a bit. Just because I, and many others, feel that SR4A is the best rule set doesn't diminish the value the previous iterations had at the time of their publication. It seems odd to me to place special value on SR1 simply because it was the first iteration. New does not necessarily mean better, and vice-versa, but I can say with absolute confidence that SR4A is a better rule-set than SR1.

That is something I miss from 1e. Or more specifically there vehicle armor rules. Vehicle armor had 4 levels 1-4. Each level specified what you automatically soaked.

1. light wounds
2. Moderate wounds.
3. serious wounds.
4 deadly wounds.

Heavy vehicles with level 4 armor(or the juggernaut before editions 2 on made him a sissy)could not be hurt without antivehcile weapons. They just auto soaked all the damage down to nothing. And even Antivehicle weapons had a hard time hurting them.

I loved a lot about 1e, but 2e refined some of it like non-variable staging, or not rolling for each bullet.(fun at first but eventually just a pain in the ass), but it changed some things I liked. For example armor used to give auto successes instead of reducing the TN. Overall though I preferred 2e. Though every edition needs to stop with the drain discount for mama/stun spells. They have positives equal to there negatives. 1e had an IMO better drain system where drain hurt, except for the sleep spell you could soak that in your sleep.

For you. I can say with absolute confidence that SR 4A is a worse rule set for me than SR1.

SR1 was nice but gawd, the staging mechanic was terrible.

SR2 made it a lot faster, easier, and much more fun.

SR3 seemed poorly done / implemented. It was like SR2 but without the fun. A lot had me wondering "what were they thinking?"

SR4 meh. It's okay. It's easy enough to get people hooked and playing. The mechanics are reasonably sound. But it's still missing something. I know that SR2 had that something.

In order of preference, I'd have to go SR2, SR4, SR3, SR1.

I just wish I still had all of my SR2 books. I lost a bunch of them in a house fire.

And this is why topics like this ultimately lead nowhere. I can say that changing the core die mechanic for SR4 was the best single change ever made to the game and you could say that it was the worst. (Noting that was not what you said.) Neither of us is right or wrong if we're using different judging criteria.

Well yeah, but this topic wasn't prove SR X is better than SR Y. It was, a personal opinion poll. I think it is interesting to see where people are coming from.

Ah-the old D+3 damage. Loved that mechanic, and people thought that the game was one of glass cannons in 4th....don'nt miss the matrix maps, though it seems we've come full circle to a degree. A single node (barring UV security) is an easy hack, having multiple nodes is a much more difficult hack. However, I do use the old system of colors to help when designing a nodes security (Blue is easy/public (Firewalls 1-2), green is commercial (Firewalls 3-4), orange is minor security grade (5), red is security grade (6+), UV-is like the movie Matrix.

On that note, can you give a quick summary of what makes you prefer SR1? Is it more rules-related or setting/fluff related, or both?

SR1 worked more like a HP mechanic to me. It was much harder to get the one hit kills due to high staging numbers, but it was also hard to reduce damage. But once you got the damage to deadly on certain weapons nothing sort of divine intervention would help you. Still overall I don't miss SR1s combat, mainly due to the autofire rules, and maybe firepower ammo. It was the shock rounds of 1e. Increased the TN to 6 staging 2 I think, and since armor gave auto hits and did not reduce the TN you were not soaking much past the auto soak. Where as a SMG had like a 3m3 code so your TN was 3 but you needed 3 hits to knock down/up the damage a stage. But is was a lot of 3m3 rolls every pass, though I think autofire kicked it up to 4m3.

I admit the SR1 staging system, while sometimes a pain, did allow for greater variety between weapons of the same category. In SR4 a heavy pistol is a heavy pistol, with only the accessories and ammunition making much difference. On the other hand my players find SR4 combat a lot easier to manage.

Both. Conceptually I like both rules sets to some degree, but they both fall down in the implementation for me. SR 4 falls down big for me in how it seems to become a game of dice pool stacking. X gives + 2 dice, Y gives me +3 dice etc.(oddly I hate that skills are capped, I don't mind the pools being 20 dice or whatever I do mind that it is frequently stacking modifiers. Looking at 3e D&D and how they had named modifiers and those of the same type would not stack would do SR4 a world of good IMO) And on top of that I think it promoted smoother and quicker play when the player knows how many dice he is going to roll before it gets to his turn. So dice pool modifiers seem slower to me than TN modifiers, though they do have the benefit of easier statistics. Which while I liked the concept of many of these things turned into a core mechanic fail for my style of play.

SR 1, the core mechanic was fine for me, but too many specifics failed. Autofire was a pain, variable staging turned too many weapons into auto damage, magic had a better drain mechanic on paper, but since the resistance TN was your sorcery skill(6 like all the time) you really could throw low force spells to absurd effect and soak drain fine.

So for me on how I view what is a core mechanic and what is a specific rules gripe on a rules level SR1 was more structurally sound.

And the fluff side SR 1-2 just was awesome in comparison for me. I see SR 4 turneing more into a transhumanism story and away from dystopean future cyber punk. I don't miss the IE metaplot to much, but I did like the ties to earthdawn.

The statistics of SR4 seem so much cleaner to me. I like that the players can fairly easily gauge their chances of success in a given Test. The old die mechanic seemed needlessly opaque. I question that players in SR1 knew what their die pools were going to be ahead of time. Unless I'm mixing up my memory of previous editions, die pools meant that you were going to have to make a decision on how to split that pool every single action. Also, someone had to figure out the TN modifiers and that involved about the same amount of effort as it takes me to come up with the DP modifiers in SR4.


The magic system was so broken and unbalanced in SR1, in exactly the way you describe, that it was a source of constant frustration for me. The subsequent iterations have gradually chipped away at that imbalance. In SR4 magicians are still powerful and versatile characters, but not nearly as unbalanced as they used to be.


And for me in SR1 the magicians were too powerful, the deckers unplayable, the autofire too cumbersome, and the core die mechanic statistically ugly. For me, all of those problems are reduced from serious to trivial(or non-existent) in SR4.


I agree with you completely on all those points. However, I happen to like the transhumanist themes and feel they retained enough dystopian elements to keep it dark.

Thanks for hashing this out with me. I like this better than a simple statement of SRX is better.

Maybe I should post my Weapon Quality house rules...

You found that magic has become less powerful in each subsequent edition?

I thought it was exactly the opposite. (I can't really say how powerful sr1 mages were, I walked in when sr2 was a few months old.)
I found that in third, chrome became gimped with the bioindex factor. Adepts could basically mop the floor with any sammie after they initiated once or twice.

With 3rd edition using your sorcery instead of force of the spell to cast dice, magic got that much more deadly. I don't know enough about 4, but it seems that possession is the way to do magic. I must have confused things but I just seem magic gaining more and more power and chrome seeing less.

Its not so much that I didn't enjoy it, its more that I don't remember it. Without source material in front of me, I can't really tell you what the rules for SR1 were, any more than I can tell you the rules for the boxed sets of D&D or even the 1st or 2nd edition D&D. I recall I enjoyed playing all of them, but the specifics have been lost to time.

2

I dabbled with first, got heavy into things during 2nd, enjoyed how they streamlined 3rd, and resisted 4th for a long time. However, once I really gave it a look, I realized that 4th was not the bastard child I had originally envisioned. SR4A is what I prefer over all. However, my earlier experiences have influenced things so my SR4A game does have some houseruling going on.

Examples of what I liked from each version, as well as what improved.

SR1: Love the setting and ideas! Thank you for getting this all started.

SR2: Streamlined a bit. Goodbye goofy staging and automatic rules, you won't be missed by me.

SR3: More streamlined. Goodbye skill tree. Good by skills that are so broad you first take a concentration then a specialization. Initiative passes give me pause though so a houserule lets me use them but still give fast people something. Attributes have some value related to skills, but its still not right.

SR4/4A: Much better dice system (IMO). Hello wireless, although the implementation still needs tweaking I like where the concept is going. Magical Unification Theory, you make sense mechanically, but as a retcon it sticks in my throat. Attributes now have value, and the lack of derived attributes (like reaction previously) means each attribute has its own value. Gone are the days of everyone having high Logic and Willpower.

I feel magic overall has gotten more powerful with each edition but older editions did have particular spells or combos that were deal breakers. The advantage in the older systems is to get those spells and combos were either not possible or way more costly as a starting character. 1e turn to goo I think is still considered the most broken spell however.

Played 2-4, and read 1. 1 looks like it has the most color, but I can't say for sure. In my experience, 2nd had the most color, and the most fun world. 3rd fixed some bugs, so the mechanics there are the best. 4th edition is too simplistic. Seems like a good game to play when drunk, but otherwise I don't see much advantage. I will say that I'm a little sad a lot of the old SR3 people have disappeared with the advent of SR4.

Hmm. I answered this question in RPG.net and I answered it like this:

Hmmm... Didn't get into Shadowrun until 2nd edition was still spanking brand new. I bought that baby and haven't looked back since. Second edition is what I mostly cut my teeth on.

I will agree that third edition is the most complete version of Shadowrun. The core book has every thing you need to run a game and the rules are nice and crunchy, just how I like them!

Now I love me some 4th edition but I will agree with Cain that the setting has started to change, not all of it for the better. I do think the rules are in the best shape they have been in a while but there are some things in that game that are just not explained properly or are given too broad of strokes. Stick N Shock rounds, Immunity to Normal Weapons, Hardened Armor, Mystic Adepts, too much temptation to Min/Max. I find myself applying 2nd/3rd edition logic to some of the rules that just seem out there in 4A. This has done wonders for my sanity as it usually always works.

Oh and god if you go to Dumpshock you will think all Shadowrun players are power gamers. I frequent the place and some of the arguments make me just roll my eyes. RAW is touted around there like it was a gospel of Christ!

Oh well, as for my favorite.... Hell, I just love Shadowrun!

Yeah, I regret none of it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

To extrapolate though, I never even got my hands on first edition until a couple of months ago. I have no clue what kind of weird rule issues it had except what I have heard. Now second edition, I bought it when it was brand new. That is the game that turned me into a true Role-player. I cut my GM teeth on that game and it is my first true love in RPG's. It is a love affair that has lasted for years.

Third edition tied up all of the things that bothered me in second edition but I only got to play it a handful of times. The rules are crunchy just like I love and the game just played smoother. I didn't think the jump from second to 3rd was that big though and, to me, the difference was small but significant. The fluff is superior and I love most of the metaplot from that edition.

Fourth edition and 4A are great games and I love how they streamlined the rules. However, I find myself having to use 2nd/3rd edition logic to resolve issues that have popped up in 4A. I still have a difference between hermetic mages and shamans (No hermetic mentor spirits here) and I still like my Shadowrun a bit darker than what the fluff of 4th edition may present. Then again, Shadowrun has to grow up and evolve and I recognize that. The cyberpunk era (as much as I love it to death) is starting to pass us by. It was about time Shadowrun got with the times and it is trying to do so. I am one that is waiting to see what Catalyst is going to bring to the table and besides, I am the GM. I change what I don't like because in the end, it is my campaign and so I have control about what actually happens.

But again and in the end, I just love Shadowrun period!

This is mostly true, with exception of a couple major changes most of the 3e core rules changes could be found in one of the 2e books if you went digging. The main advantage of 3e over 2e (except the couple of big changes, spellcasting, initiative, skills and one or two more IIRC) was that you had all those options from the supplemental books that "fixed" 2e in the core book of 3e so your not hunting as much for the rule.

That is sort of how I see it as well. At its core I think magic had become more powerful over the editions but it had a few way broken things or exploits in the earlier editions.

For me it would be best if magic was in the 2e realm(though higher drain on mana/stun spells) with initiation like 3e where you don't get all the metamagics and a fix to grounding so it still existed but was not exploitable. My personal opinion on how it could have been was limit the grounding to the item and whoever it was bound or summoned by. So I can ground a fireball through a spell focus but only the focus and the mage get burned, same for spirits.

Though I do like some of the expanded metamgcis in SR3 and on like reflecting and absorption.

I've played ever edition since the games introduction. For my money 1st edition had the best setting which was built on pretty decently by second edition. 4th edition has the worst setting stuff, and is pretty cheaply put together for my money-pretty but empty. I've never had any problems with any of the rule sets, and the crunch has never been that important to me. With the right setting I could play Shadowrun in any system.

I agree with you one-hundred percent. I think I said that third edition is the best set of rules with an amount of crunch that is lovely. I just never got to explore 3rd edition like I wanted to.

Started with 1e, where the setting caught my imagination. As for the rules I can't really remember most of them.
I think that the change to 2e wasn't really that much. They fixed some of the clunky things, but as usually happens, messed up other aspects.
3e made many sweeping changes, some better, some worst. It was the last edition we played until just recently.
4e seems to have streamlined the rules system, my newer players seem to really like it. I'm still on the fence, but am starting to like it.
1e is the edition that comes to mind at the mention of Shadowrun. So nostalgia wise 1e is my favorite edition, followed by 2e, then 4e and lastly 3e.
Rules wise - 2e, 4e, 1e, 3e. At the time of this writing this is true. That may and probably will change over time.