How is 4e simpler than 3e (sell me on the idea)? Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Switch to: Outline Switch to: Standard Linear+

[tete]

Because I'm just not seeing it. For example you have replaced TNs which change in one dimension with Variable Thresholds and Dice Pool Modifiers which is two dimensions of change.

[limejello10512]

well I remember putting 3rd edition down cause I found it to be unplayable.... I don't know what possesd me to buy fourth ed but it is the game I am playing now....fantastic game....I find it simple and easy.

Also there is one demension to dice pools it's just the number of dice the target is always the same a 5 or 6 is always a hit....in 3rd the target and dice pool changed, and I don't know why it was confusing. everything also used weird different systems.....this doesn't everyhting is a variation of the dice pool system and it works very nicely. It's also easy to redesign everything. It what was up with power AND damge? Especially when damge was static? The damage system in this is way better. There are a bunch of other things too but it's been so long since I've played third ed that I don't remember.

HOWEVER

if you want some help I found some great cheat sheets here that pretty much sum up the book in 4 pages

http://www.geocities.com/grant_erswell/sr/index.htm

While tryin to find the above site I also came upon this but I haven't looked it all over yet so it might suck:

http://pavao.org/shadowrun/cheatsheets/

[Apathy]

Dice Mechanics

• The old mechanic had you rolling a variable number of dice based on your stats, attributes, and lots of different modifiers against a variable target number based on difficult and lots of different modifiers. The number of dice rolled effects your success chance linearly, but changes in TN impacted your chances non-linearly, which made odds difficult to calculate. Does your opponent have better odds of hitting you with a TN 8 and 10 dice pool or do you have a better chance of hitting him with TN 12 and 15 dice? At the time I made tables to keep track of the stuff, but I was never able to just rattle the odds off the top of my head. Also meant that a given TN modifier could have wildly different impact depending on how many other modifiers stacked up with it (going from TN 6 to 7 was a lot different than going from TN 9 to 10.)
• The new mechanic is completely linear. Fixed TN, and variable dice. Effectively, changing threshhold by one is the same as modifying the dice pool by 3 - still linear. You will always know that roughly a third of your DP will be hits on an average roll, so it's easy to guess your chances of beating the threshhold at a glance.

Rules Consistency

• SR3 had very different paradigms for each group of actions. Matrix, Magic, Melee were all calculated differently, and it was tough to remember the distinctions. It's been too long since I've played SR3 and I can't remember many examples, but I do remember feeling that when SR4 came around that the rules were more consistent. Of course, the flip side of that is that the detractors would call it dumbed down.
• SR4 didn't follow their own guideline for consistency in all cases. Matrix actions are still calculated differently than physical ones (which many of us dislike and have house-ruled away), for instance. But they're still more streamlined than the old rules. They no longer have different rules for hermetics vs shamans, etc.

[Screaming Eagle]

Simplifications:

THE MATRIX RULES - OMG! i'm not even sure where it start, that paranoia style colour coding, the program dependant TN's, the variable rating on all the different tasks depending on the system the grossly differing IC rules - all gone. On the sad side I had just figured it all out solidly when they switched

Then Magic rules - actually now unified, actually now using the same rules for everyone, not all good changes, but no serious complaints

The Chase rules - Still a nightmare, but whats a body to do.

No more pools - this is one of the few changes I outright didn't like but it does make teaching the game easier.

Bioware uses essence not its own tracking system

Less math to figure out how many dice you need to do hard things - this is the biggest simplification. The difficulties are far more transparent and it is rather easy to see how many dice you need to reliably do X task.

Things they haven't sold me on that are "simpler":
The new take on riggers - they ain't riggers. They don't feel like riggers in play and they don't make baby Jesus cry when behind the wheel when compared to a decker doing the same thing with a good command program.

[tete]

sure I'll buy that the skill increase is more linear with a fixed tn, but I don't feel that is simpler... Coming from the GM perspective I now have to calculate 2 things, the threshold and a dice pool modifier where as before all I had to calculate was target number. I understand many people find calculating a TN difficult, I never did, its just adding and subtracting. The new system isnt hard I just have to do the TN calculation twice now, once for dice pool and once for threshold.

sr3 was skill+any dice pool you wanted to add. Thats pretty much the same now only you don't get a choice is attribute+skill (except matrix that falls back to the sr2 rules of program+skill unless you use the optional rules)

dice pools were pre-calculated as karma, hacking, spell, combat + a couple optional ones. This again doesn't feel any harder than the new system just less options, i can't choose to save some of my pool for later.

Magic well ill buy into its better but i still wouldn't say simpler. A tied force to a spell just didn't make as much sense when they moved away from spell pool+force (sr2) to spell pool + skill (sr 3)

Bioware, ill buy into that...

Matrix that is a tough one using the standard rules they added a lot of skills (from 2 skills to 7) to keep track of making it "i roll what?" and made the decks more complicated by separating the MPCP into two components. But they removed the different TNs for each test. Programs are pretty much the same so I call that a wash.

[Karoline]

Wasn't it possible for the dice pools to change throughout a game? Which means you're still dealing with two numbers changing. Personally I think it is more complicated to keep track of a half dozen 'pools' which can change than to just use attribute + skill.

Also the TNs are fairly set and don't change a whole lot. Most TNs are actually opposed tests, which is alot easier to do in SR4 than SR3, as you don't have to calculate anything, you just roll the dice.

Never ran the matrix in SR3 so don't really know how different they are.

[Screaming Eagle]

Frankly having given 4th ed a shake down over the last year and change I have no preferance either way. If I had a group that wanted to play 3rd over 4th I'd be all over that.

I was REALLY fond of the "pool" rules and their ommision bothered me far more then the change in dice mechanincs ever could.
The Matrix has always been my weakest link in this game and I found the newer system more intuitive - still not actually intuitive, but more so.
I seem to recall there have always been thresholds, in opposed and extended tests as well as many spells (petrify comes to mind for some reason), but maybe I'm out of it (I am at work and far from my 1st and 3rd ed books, never did have a copy of second *weeps a single tear*).
I don't feel the need to wax poetic the "New and improved" system... because I don't feel it is greatly improved and if I had a group want to use first Ed. I would... now I want to run first Ed... dang...

[Dragnar]

SR3 had a lot of fake flexibility in it, that actually didn't make the game any better. Having "more dimensions of change" is actually a bad thing, as it makes probabilities harder (or even impossible) to gauge for the GM, while not actually allowing for all that much more significant probability spreads.
Case in point: How does the probability of success change if a character with a dicepool of 9 changes from having a TN of 8 to a TN of 9, compared to reducing the dicepool to 7? If the GM can't eyeball the difference within any reasonable margin of correctness, the technically "more gradual probability" becomes utterly meaningless in an actual game.

[Malachi]

I also seem to be one of the few people that didn't like Dice Pools (neither did my players). They were a far too abstract, "gamey" concept for us. What were they supposed to represent exactly? They were these incredibly abstract things, only somewhat related to your character's combat abilities, and were very difficult to explain/grasp for new players. Especially so since you needed to pre-declare them at the beginning of the combat turn, we always forgot to do that. What it boiled down to was that any roll in a Combat Turn that you really "cared" about, you doubled your dice. With SR4's mechanic of adding your Attribute to skill to form the "dice pool" it's just like you're throwing your Pool dice into every test. It's also a whole lot easier for new players to understand.

[PBI]

Dice pools in Sr1-3 never changed unless the stats they were based on changed, so, no, you never had to recalculate pools that often.

[Shinobi Killfist]

SR 4 unified things, which is a bit simpler. But on the other hand I never thought it was that hard to learn a sub-system if I was going to be using it. If I am playing adecker I will learn the decking rules, so its not a big deal IMO.

SR 2&3 there core mechanic I actually found easier. A variable TN makes it easier on both sides of the table for me. Before it was simple you roll your skill and what ever pool you were going to put into it, and then the GM says how many 6's did you get. Bang easy. Now you are constantly adjusting how many dice you roll for recoil, damage, lighting etc. A fairly constant amount of dice to roll and the GM says your TN is X just seems easier to me. I understand its basically the same thing but in reverse for 4e, but again for me it was easier.

SR2 was my favorite, though SR1 is a close 2nd. Sr3 I found less impressive, and SR4 even less impressive. You know I like unique sub-systems. I don't think one rule fits all the things in play. I don't feel it added much in the way of difficulty but it added immensely to the game play.

[Karoline]

Well, it may have been all well and good for each player to know their own sub-system and not all that difficult, but the GM needs to know them all, which puts on a fair bit of extra work.

[Heath Robinson]

SR 4 unified things, which is a bit simpler. But on the other hand I never thought it was that hard to learn a sub-system if I was going to be using it. If I am playing adecker I will learn the decking rules, so its not a big deal IMO.

SR 2&3 there core mechanic I actually found easier. A variable TN makes it easier on both sides of the table for me. Before it was simple you roll your skill and what ever pool you were going to put into it, and then the GM says how many 6's did you get. Bang easy. Now you are constantly adjusting how many dice you roll for recoil, damage, lighting etc. A fairly constant amount of dice to roll and the GM says your TN is X just seems easier to me. I understand its basically the same thing but in reverse for 4e, but again for me it was easier.

SR2 was my favorite, though SR1 is a close 2nd. Sr3 I found less impressive, and SR4 even less impressive. You know I like unique sub-systems. I don't think one rule fits all the things in play. I don't feel it added much in the way of difficulty but it added immensely to the game play.

You're offloading much of your work to the already overloaded GM. Have you no shame?

[Shinobi Killfist]

I didn't think it was much extra work when I GMd SR2. Magic had like 4 or 5 basic rules to learn.
1. Spellcasting
2. summoning
3. drain
4. astral

Decking was a bit of a bitch but I have no problem learning the basics and letting the player handle the rules side a bit. Really how much did I have to learn as a GM, a few basic program and IC types, and the basic rating system. The mechanics weren't exactly far off form the normal mechanics. You rolled X dice based on the program etc and your TN was the opposed attribute. The player had the fun time of learning like 40 different programs.

[Dreadlord]

I was running a group of players new to Shadowrun with 3rd edition. We quit in mid-campaign, because we all found the system non-linear, chock-full of speacial-case rules, and WAY too much load on the GM.

Plus, 2 words: Skill. Web. UUUUgggghhh!!!!

Now, I am running 4th edition, and the basic dice mechanic is fairly uniform throughout the game. Thresholds (which you need only occasionally) are pretty standard: 1, 2, 3, 5 hits needed depending on difficulty. Extended tests are a breeze as well, and with the new -1 die cumulative per roll, it is now much more exciting than it was where it just wasted real time and game time.

I hate to admit this as a GM, but often I don't stat out every opponent, I just assign basic pools for everything, and fake it! I couldn't do that as easily with SR3.

[Shinobi Killfist]

You're offloading much of your work to the already overloaded GM. Have you no shame?

Um, I was the GM. And I really did not find it much more difficult to learn, and I found it easier to run.

[Paul]

I don't think 4e is simpler, but it is different. But that's my vote.

[cndblank]

Well, it may have been all well and good for each player to know their own sub-system and not all that difficult, but the GM needs to know them all, which puts on a fair bit of extra work.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is no comparison in the game systems.

3rd was a huge step forward but they kept adding more and more subsystems.



Just getting rid of those horrible Rigger vs Spider/security rigger combat system made 4th worth it.

And you can run your campaign in 2050 and play down the wireless.

[Joe Chummer]

One changed aspect I like better is the handling of damage. In SR1-3, attacks could only inflict 4 amounts of damage:

Light wound - 1 box
Moderate wound - 3 boxes
Serious wound - 6 boxes
Deadly wound - 10 boxes

All characters had only 10 boxes on their damage monitor, regardless of metatype, and you could only scale damage up or down in whole-level increments, not individual boxes. So, if you already had a Serious wound, then took another Serious hit from the same weapon, you'd be out (and with 2 overflow boxes, to boot), even if you managed to scale the damage back from what started as a Deadly-level attack. If you take a Deadly hit with a fresh, clean Condition Monitor, you're out, no matter how well you did on your Damage Resistance Test.

With SR4 rules, you could possibly scale the damage of an attack down to 5 boxes, then you could take another hit from the same weapon and scale the hit back to 4 boxes. In this scenario, you'd have blood in your eyes and not be able to shoot straight, but you're not yet down for the count. And if you take a single hit with a power of 10 (enough to fill most characters' whole condition monitors at once), if you do well enough on your Damage Resistance Test, you might be able to scale the damage down to 9 boxes and at least be able to limp away. For those with survivability of their characters in mind (like myself; I hate senselessly killing characters with a bad roll), I think this is a big draw.

I also think that characters being able to have more than ten boxes of damage puts high-Body characters in a more realistic perspective.

[Heath Robinson]

Um, I was the GM. And I really did not find it much more difficult to learn, and I found it easier to run.

You found it easier to run all of the mental maths for every player at your table? I question the reliability of that anecdote.

[Joe Chummer]

You found it easier to run all of the mental maths for every player at your table? I question the reliability of that anecdote.

Maybe the guy just has an "Affinity For Numbers" quality or something? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

Let's face it: some people are just good at math. I'm certainly not one of them. I think my mother took the "Hates Numbers with a Passion" quality at character creation.

[the_real_elwood]

I was always fine with 3rd edition, and the variable target number and dice pool thing never bothered me. Sure, the rules then made it worthless to spend the effort to move your target numbers from a 7 to a 6, but that was never a problem for our groups.

I think the biggest advantage is the simplified way that magic works over all disciplines, and the further integration of the matrix rules. Our 3E groups never played with a decker, partly because no one wanted to, but partly because for most of the time the decker would have been sitting around the table doing nothing.

[Dikotana]

SR4's Matrix and rigging are hands-down better, because those don't become single-player games with lots of observers.

SR4 unifies rules. Things work the same way, and if you learn how SR4 works you can handle SR4. SR3 has subsystems. They're oddball, they require a lot of learning or accepting that you, the player, don't quite get how that decker/rigger/mage/bioware works. It's okay. The GM needs to know more, which can be either good or bad. Running SR3 on the fly isn't much different from running SR4, though. You can make up dice pools and stats for challenges on the fly for either if you know what you're doing.

TNs? Yes, the probability is weird. I usually keep a cheat sheet of odds handy.

Bottom line: The games work differently. SR4 is definitely more newbie-friendly, but all the special rules for SR3 are a lot of fun if you like special rules. (You do definitely want a GM capable of picking and choosing, though. Anyone trying to force the surgery rules on players deserves to lose said players!) SR4 is simpler in learning curve and rules; SR3 is simple enough once you've played a few times in a few roles.

[Cain]

With the exception of the Vehicle rules, SR4 is not simpler than SR3. Where the difference lies is that SR4 is written much better than SR3, making it more accessible. The writing quality and layout in SR4 are far superior, especially when you consider that FASA always had serious layout issues. This makes it look simpler, but it's actually an illusion.

There are advantages-- the increased accessibility means you can use the book examples more often, rather than trying to come up with your own, thus decreasing the need for your own teaching skill. I've discovered, however, that it's easier to explain the core mechanic of SR3: I can explain that using only a sentence or two, while SR4 requires about three sentences and a handful of dice as a visual aid. Not that either is especially difficult to explain, it's just that SR4 is easier to explain with props.

SR4's Matrix and rigging are hands-down better, because those don't become single-player games with lots of observers.

I never had that problem. I had deckers go along with the party most of the time, and act in the same time as the others. For solo decking runs, it was no worse than the mage going on an astral space recon, or the team ninja going on a stealth recon.

Running SR3 on the fly isn't much different from running SR4, though. You can make up dice pools and stats for challenges on the fly for either if you know what you're doing.

Technically true, but SR3 NPC's are easier to make up on the fly and by prepwork. By the book, SR4 characters are built with BP's. So, you need to build each one from scratch. What's more, the same number of BP's won't guarantee you the same power level of character, so a 450-BP NPC is going to get his butt handed to him by a well-built 400-point runner.

[tete]

I was running a group of players new to Shadowrun with 3rd edition. We quit in mid-campaign, because we all found the system non-linear, chock-full of speacial-case rules, and WAY too much load on the GM.

Plus, 2 words: Skill. Web. UUUUgggghhh!!!!

Now, I am running 4th edition, and the basic dice mechanic is fairly uniform throughout the game. Thresholds (which you need only occasionally) are pretty standard: 1, 2, 3, 5 hits needed depending on difficulty. Extended tests are a breeze as well, and with the new -1 die cumulative per roll, it is now much more exciting than it was where it just wasted real time and game time.

I hate to admit this as a GM, but often I don't stat out every opponent, I just assign basic pools for everything, and fake it! I couldn't do that as easily with SR3.

There was no skill web in 3e...You either defaulted to a similar skill for +2TN or back to the attribute for +3. The skill groups were almost the same as they are now just you could only take the individual skills but you could default to any of the others in that group. 1e and 2e had the skill web.

[edit]I have always done like you and never stated npcs. I find 4e no different from previous editions in this regard.

Where the difference lies is that SR4 is written much better than SR3, making it more accessible.

This is true since 4A especially...

If you take a Deadly hit with a fresh, clean Condition Monitor, you're out, no matter how well you did on your Damage Resistance Test.

Huh? if you make your damage resistance test you don't take that level of damage... I don't see how your "out"?

[Shinobi Killfist]

You found it easier to run all of the mental maths for every player at your table? I question the reliability of that anecdote.

There isn't any more mental math in 1-3e than there is in 4e. Giving a TN to hit is no different than giving a player the right # of penalty dice. I found it easier because I wasn't juggling a different number of dice all the time for the same NPC template. All the thugs just rolled 4 dice for shooting with he pistol or whatever I just adjusted the TN for each NPC, I didn't have to constantly switch up how many dice I had in my hand. Also I find different subsystems easier to remember in game than a exception based core rule system.

If you are talking probability, I could care less what the odds are. You have a TN is 8 roll and find out how many successes you got.

Also in 1-3e I found it a whole of a lot less necessary to make it a penalty based game like 4e is. 4e seems to try to feebly balance archetypes with different penalty systems. You should always have a background count of X or the mage is going to be too powerful, blah blah. If I constantly have to create modifiers to form the internal balance between archtypes I have a lot more work on my hands.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

There isn't any more mental math in 1-3e than there is in 4e. Giving a TN to hit is no different than giving a player the right # of penalty dice. I found it easier because I wasn't juggling a different number of dice all the time for the same NPC template. All the thugs just rolled 4 dice for shooting with he pistol or whatever I just adjusted the TN for each NPC, I didn't have to constantly switch up how many dice I had in my hand. Also I find different subsystems easier to remember in game than a exception based core rule system.

If you are talking probability, I could care less what the odds are. You have a TN is 8 roll and find out how many successes you got.

Also in 1-3e I found it a whole of a lot less necessary to make it a penalty based game like 4e is. 4e seems to try to feebly balance archetypes with different penalty systems. You should always have a background count of X or the mage is going to be too powerful, blah blah. If I constantly have to create modifiers to form the internal balance between archtypes I have a lot more work on my hands.

Maybe it is just me, but I think that the streamlining of 4th edition is a godsend, as it makes learning the game for new players a great deal easier than the older editions...

Also, I see no problems balancing the archtypes against each other (Real life is not balanced after all), without going to the extremes that you describe (such as background count always an X)...

Keep the Faith

[Thanee]

Changing the number of dice with fixed TN (which we already did back in 2nd Ed.) just seems more natural with a dice pool system, where it is the number of successes (yeah, hits), that is relevant.

It also plays out more intuitively at least for me. The streamlining surely plays a big part here.

Bye
Thanee

[Cain]

Maybe it is just me, but I think that the streamlining of 4th edition is a godsend, as it makes learning the game for new players a great deal easier than the older editions...

You're right, it is just you. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

SR4 is not really more streamlined than previous editions. It *is* better-written and laid out, which helps make it more intuitive and easy to grasp. But that's due to the writers, and not the system.

[tete]

Just a quick note I have had the chance to run 2 sessions for my wife as a decker/hacker. One in 3e and one in 4e, all she has played various short shots of shadowrun (maybe a half dozen games) and never really liked it. She has played the old sega game alot. She found 3e much easier to grasp. This is partly because I know 3e better and the adventure for 3e was a bit better suited for a decker to have alot to do. So its not quite apples to apples but it does show that at leased from a players perspective 3e can be more strait forward than 4e.

[edit] some of her thoughts... The target numbers made gauging how tough the node was easier. Tests were easier because all you rolled was the skill + a dice pool if you had one (which is obvious, hack pool for hacking). You didn't have to try and remember "oh yeah logic caps my successes". Program names were easier to understand what they did. There were less skills, you didn't have to look up if it was cybercombat or hacking for that test. Another example was datasearch & computer, too many similar skills.

[Dikotana]

Technically true, but SR3 NPC's are easier to make up on the fly and by prepwork. By the book, SR4 characters are built with BP's. So, you need to build each one from scratch. What's more, the same number of BP's won't guarantee you the same power level of character, so a 450-BP NPC is going to get his butt handed to him by a well-built 400-point runner.

If you're building large numbers of NPCs with the PC character creation rules, you're doing too much work. Most characters don't need to be fully fleshed out. They need attributes and they need dice pools for the tasks they're going to perform. Decide how good you want them to be at things, make up some numbers, and you've got yourself a character.

Priority saves a bit of time on character creation, but it's still possible to make a terrible character with poor point allocation. In particular, there's a huge barrier to entry with equipment in every SR edition. You've got a huge pile of nuyen to spend ((IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) 1,000,000 in SR3!) and a huge list to spend it on. Buying the right guns, cyberware, decks/commlinks, drones, vehicles, and so on and so forth requires a huge amount of knowledge of the system. If you know how to equip a character, you understand the game well enough that with priority or with build points you can put something together quick that isn't a trainwreck of a character sheet.

[Joe Chummer]

Huh? if you make your damage resistance test you don't take that level of damage... I don't see how your "out"?

In 2nd/3rd Ed. every 2 net successes an attacker made increased the damage level of an attack by one. Every two net successes the defender made on their Damage Resistance Test reduced the damage level by one.

So, if you got hit with, say, a 16D attack (power 16, Deadly damage), and your ballistic armor only soaks up 4 points of the power of the attack (12D attack), and you rolled one success one your Damage Resistance Test (which means you rolled a 6, than rerolled the 6 [using the Rule of Six] and got a second 6, for a total of 12, thus hitting the Target Number of 12, which is a pretty good roll, all things considered), that one success is not enough to downgrade the damage of the attack to Serious (you need 2 net successes to reduce the damage by one level). Thus, you take Deadly damage. You cross off all ten boxes on your Condition Monitor, and you are unconscious. Not dead, per se, but most certainly out.

[Cain]

If you're building large numbers of NPCs with the PC character creation rules, you're doing too much work. Most characters don't need to be fully fleshed out. They need attributes and they need dice pools for the tasks they're going to perform. Decide how good you want them to be at things, make up some numbers, and you've got yourself a character.

That's what they need, but according to the rules, you must build them with BP's. I prefer eyeballing them as well, but by the book, I'm not allowed to. I believe that SR1-3 recommended the eyeball method as well.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

You're right, it is just you. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

SR4 is not really more streamlined than previous editions. It *is* better-written and laid out, which helps make it more intuitive and easy to grasp. But that's due to the writers, and not the system.

This is where you and I would disagree... there are no more (or at least a minimum of) sub-systems, this is a big change from SR3 to SR4+ (where everything was a subsystem)... with everything working the same, it IS more streamlined in a lot of ways (though not everyone understandable likes this change)...

This change alone makes it more intuitive, though the layout and design also help a great deal in this matter as well...

Keep the Faith

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

That's what they need, but according to the rules, you must build them with BP's. I prefer eyeballing them as well, but by the book, I'm not allowed to. I believe that SR1-3 recommended the eyeball method as well.

Why exactly are you building the NPC's with BP's?

Use the NPC templates and customize to your taste... takes about 2 minutes per NPC (if you even change anything)... the only NPC's built with BP/Karma are Prime Runners... if you are spending BP's for every NPC you stat, you are doing too much work...

[Matsci]

Just a quick note I have had the chance to run 2 sessions for my wife as a decker/hacker. One in 3e and one in 4e, all she has played various short shots of shadowrun (maybe a half dozen games) and never really liked it. She has played the old sega game alot. She found 3e much easier to grasp. This is partly because I know 3e better and the adventure for 3e was a bit better suited for a decker to have alot to do. So its not quite apples to apples but it does show that at leased from a players perspective 3e can be more strait forward than 4e.

[edit] some of her thoughts... The target numbers made gauging how tough the node was easier. Tests were easier because all you rolled was the skill + a dice pool if you had one (which is obvious, hack pool for hacking). You didn't have to try and remember "oh yeah logic caps my successes". Program names were easier to understand what they did. There were less skills, you didn't have to look up if it was cybercombat or hacking for that test. Another example was datasearch & computer, too many similar skills.

Some of this seems to come from mis-understanding.

How are the Rating of nodes diffrent across editions?

4e is Skill+Program. How hard is that?

Logic Capping successes is a houserule.

Program Names are better? Half the time they have the same names.

To many skills? You use like 3 while hacking.
Are you fighting? Cybercombat
Are you Hacking? Hacking
Are you using a regular computer acess? Computer.

I agree with you about data search, though.

[tete]

In 2nd/3rd Ed. every 2 net successes an attacker made increased the damage level of an attack by one. Every two net successes the defender made on their Damage Resistance Test reduced the damage level by one.

So, if you got hit with, say, a 16D attack (power 16, Deadly damage), and your ballistic armor only soaks up 4 points of the power of the attack (12D attack), and you rolled one success one your Damage Resistance Test (which means you rolled a 6, than rerolled the 6 [using the Rule of Six] and got a second 6, for a total of 12, thus hitting the Target Number of 12, which is a pretty good roll, all things considered), that one success is not enough to downgrade the damage of the attack to Serious (you need 2 net successes to reduce the damage by one level). Thus, you take Deadly damage. You cross off all ten boxes on your Condition Monitor, and you are unconscious. Not dead, per se, but most certainly out.

I guess I never saw this as a problem as the attacker also needed pairs of successes to stage the damage up to deadly. The only weapons that do strait deadly (thus only needing one success) should kill you outright anyway. Thanks for the clarification as I can see what your saying.

Some of this seems to come from mis-understanding.

How are the Rating of nodes diffrent across editions?

4e is Skill+Program. How hard is that?

Logic Capping successes is a houserule.

Program Names are better? Half the time they have the same names.

To many skills? You use like 3 while hacking.
Are you fighting? Cybercombat
Are you Hacking? Hacking
Are you using a regular computer acess? Computer.

I agree with you about data search, though.

So nodes are now system+firewall the PC gets no prior knowledge to what they need. The metagame of 1-3e the gm may tell you the target number before hand (rather than potentially having you roll infinitely with the rule of 6) thus giving away the difficulty of the system. So you could use the metagame knowledge to jack out.

The problem she had wasn't with the mechanics (which are actually a rehash of the original mechanics) it was with the terms. Deception is more strait forward as to what it does than Exploit. You have to remember to that she has played the sega game alot so the program names from 1-3 she kinda already knows.

Your correct, this was an error on my part thinking that the optional rule listed in 4A where you use attribute+skill hits capped by program rating worked the same in reverse for the regular system.

The programs that threw her off were all the new ones and the couple of name changes.

Yes your using 3 for hacking... compared to 1 skill in 1-3e.

Again this was not quite an apples to apples test. 4e had two things against it going into the test. 1) my experience level, I can run 1-3e in my sleep having run over 100 sessions of 2e, and over 50 of 3e and at leased a dozen of 1e while having at most 1/2 dozen games of 4e. 2) the 4e adventure was not as well designed to give the decker things to do. It was interesting to here my wifes points however coming from someone who as a whole doesn't like shadowrun. 3e was much easier for her grasp (I blame the sega game, and terms used). She has not read the books (other than some novels) so this in no way has anything to do with the quality of writing but just the choice in terms used.

[Semerkhet]

I'll throw in my .02 nuyen and say that I prefer 4th edition to any previous edition. I've been playing off and on since 1st edition in '89. My preference is based on a whole bunch of small reasons, many of which have been mentioned by other posters in this topic. I find the core die-rolling mechanic to be a vast improvement on the old one. I have a much easier time as GM estimating probable success for a given size die pool. I didn't much care for dice pools, so I don't miss them. I like Edge. I like the new BP chargen system. I like that not all magicians start at 6 Magic. I could go on in that vein for a while.

Biggest single selling point is the updated computer and communications tech. My tastes in near future gaming have trended toward the Transhuman Space direction, but I hate GURPS and I like the tech/magic mashup of Shadowrun. So I'm glad they've made the SR setting a little more in line with current trends in SF futurism; even if all the AR and wireless stuff is less than 20 years off, not 50. In fact, I'm considering introducing more Transhuman Space elements like full digital consciousness transfer and more prevalent nanotech.

Is it simpler overall? Maybe a little bit. Certainly more unified, but not much simpler. Doesn't matter to me, since simpler wasn't the selling point anyway.

[Cain]

This is where you and I would disagree... there are no more (or at least a minimum of) sub-systems, this is a big change from SR3 to SR4+ (where everything was a subsystem)... with everything working the same, it IS more streamlined in a lot of ways (though not everyone understandable likes this change)...

This change alone makes it more intuitive, though the layout and design also help a great deal in this matter as well...

Keep the Faith

I agree that there are no more subsystems, at least as far as the core book goes. But in both cases, the subsystems are just a twist on the core mechanic. (Discounting the Maneuver Score, of course--I *despise* the maneuver score.) The streamlining is largely an illusion.

Why exactly are you building the NPC's with BP's?

Because that's the rules. You are supposed to build each and every NPC using the PC rules, and eyeballing it or modifying the existing templates is technically cheating. I *like* modifying and eyeballing better, but I don't pretend
I'm following the rules when I do so.

[Matsci]

Because that's the rules. You are supposed to build each and every NPC using the PC rules, and eyeballing it or modifying the existing templates is technically cheating. I *like* modifying and eyeballing better, but I don't pretend
I'm following the rules when I do so.

Acording to my rulebook, only Prime Runners are build with BP. Grunts Abilities and Skills are dependent on their profession rating.

[Blade]

I have to admit that as a GM I always had trouble keeping track of the NPC's dice pools. I either had to write them down (which took time) or make them up (which wasn't fair).

Other than that I think that a good example of the streamlining is the posession spirits rules. In SR3 there was at least one ruleset per spirit type (bug, shedims, voodoo...) now there's only one posession rule that covers them all with little to no impact on the fluff. That's the kind of change the streamlining is about.

[Medicineman]

You're right, it is just you. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

SR4 is not really more streamlined than previous editions. It *is* better-written and laid out, which helps make it more intuitive and easy to grasp. But that's due to the writers, and not the system.

Well its also Me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
And Yes SR4 is more streamlined.
In SR3 you had Riggers and Deckers and they had different Rules or accessing the Matrix .As a Decker ,you needed
special "Riggerware" even though both used the same Matrix.
Now in SR4 they use the same stremlined Rules.Much better,much easier ,for Players and for the DM.
What about the MiJi Rules.3 separate Tracks,that made the Takingover of a Drone very cumbersome and lengthy.
What about slow and complex and difficult Matrix Rules in SR3 .I've been (and I'm still going) to a lot of Convenbtions. Most often SR3 GM's didn't want any Deckers because the Rules where very Complex. Now in SR4 the hacker is a needed
Member of the Runners Party 'cause the rules are easier (I used to Play some SR3 Deckers, my SR4 Hackers are much easier to Play)
Magic : !!
in SR3 you had one Set of Rules for each different Tradition.One for Hermetics,one for Schamans,Voodoo, WuJen,etc. They where all different Rules,the Spirits where all different.
Now in SR4 its all Streamlined you have the Same Kind of Spirits no matter what kind of Mage you are (they're only different in One way ,when theyre Possession Spirits)
so its so much easier for GM and Player alike
Now its the Fluff of the Tradition thats more Important,so its more "Roleplay" (I hope you get my Meaning,sometimes its not Easy for me to find the right Words (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif) )

Oh,one more Thing
Cain Is wrong,when he says that SR4 NPCs have to be Build with BP.
Its their Profession Rating thats important. only High Class NPCs are build with BPs (Same as SR3 NSCs)

With the right Dance (I Hope)
Medicineman

[darune]

I have played 3rd edition from time to time in past, but once we really got to try out 4th edition i have to say it is a joy now.

I always found the setting to be interesting enough to play the game even if that meant I was not too fond of the core mechanics and combat system that was overly complicated.

Add to that, that most of the times we played without magic in the setting and without deckers (since the decker was a solo game anyways, we used an NPC for that).

The biggest change is truely the better layout of the book, even if a few references are off, it is nothing compared to 3rd.

I remember it was very frustating trying to grasp rules for rigging (we didn't have expansion book for riggers). It was basicly 1½-2 page in the book that gently touched the concept of rigging or so i recall.
Another example i remember was me asking another player, what this table column was short for, we found out it was not even in the book. That is so far out its not even funny.

Actually it is alot of small and big things that makes it simpler, that is best described as a generel overhaul. That is not say that it has become very simple, there are still a lot of speciel rules, most related to modifiers and the process of accomplishing something.

There are other things as well, like edge and new BP system, that makes 4th cool.

[Karoline]

Been a while since I looked at 3e, but as I recall the 3e program names where really confusing. Names like sleaze are way less obvious than 'stealth'. 'exploit' should be easy enough for anyone that knows english most of the time.

Didn't 3e have a bunch of other unclear names along the lines of sleaze and schmooze?

I think your girlfriend/wife (Don't remember what you said) got a bit of a biased view since you yourself are exceedingly more experienced at running 3e than 4e, and her previous experience with the SNES game (Which is awesome by the way). She isn't all that objective when she has had tons of experience with the old system and none with the new.

Stealth, attack, data bomb, encrypt, armor, medic. All the 4e names seem entirely self explanatory to me.

[Semerkhet]

Because that's the rules. You are supposed to build each and every NPC using the PC rules, and eyeballing it or modifying the existing templates is technically cheating. I *like* modifying and eyeballing better, but I don't pretend I'm following the rules when I do so.

As a GM, there are no rules, only guidelines. Nothing I do, if done in the service of making the game fun for everyone, is cheating.

[cndblank]

I picked up SR 1 the first Gencon it came out, ran a nine year campaign using Third at the end.

Been running SR4 for almost 2 years now.

SR4 does a wonderful job covering all the ground that 3rd did using a fairly uniformed game mechanic.

I had serious trouble keeping up with all the game mechanic subsystems towards the end. And some of them were pretty bad (like rigger on rigger combat for control of a building system).

No knock on third, but 4th is better written and they already knew everything they needed to cover so it is much better organized.

Yes I miss some of the detail in third, but having simpler game mechanics that are so much easier to learn or teach really makes it worth while to me.

[tete]

Is it simpler overall? Maybe a little bit. Certainly more unified, but not much simpler.

I think that sums up how I am feeling about it but I started this thread because people kept telling me move your group to 4e because its simpler. The more I read/play 4e the more I feel that while it has its improvements, simpler is not one of them.

What about slow and complex and difficult Matrix Rules in SR3 .I've been (and I'm still going) to a lot of Convenbtions. Most often SR3 GM's didn't want any Deckers because the Rules where very Complex. Now in SR4 the hacker is a needed
Member of the Runners Party 'cause the rules are easier (I used to Play some SR3 Deckers, my SR4 Hackers are much easier to Play)

I disagree, deckers have been easy to play since vr2.0, infact you can play them with little to no mini game (at leased no more than a face character or anyone else gets) unless you get wrapped up in the fluff of describing the matrix. Most of the time you can handle matrix runs in 1-4 rolls, unless they set off the alarm and theres matrix combat its pretty quick. The new rules may be slightly faster just because the target threshold against all the tests is the same where as in 3e they could change the target number of a test based on action. The only way they are more useful is the fluff, now with common wireless (3e had wireless just not everywhere) and hacking peoples cyberware they have more they can do but thats a timeline thing not a rules thing.

Didn't 3e have a bunch of other unclear names along the lines of sleaze and schmooze?

Yes, all the more uncommon programs had gonzo names. 4e lines up more with common computer terms (more so), however if your not in the biz the term doesn't mean anything to you.

[Semerkhet]

I think that sums up how I am feeling about it but I started this thread because people kept telling me move your group to 4e because its simpler. The more I read/play 4e the more I feel that while it has its improvements, simpler is not one of them.

Let me use slightly more precise terminology. If you think of the SR4 rules as a systems hierarchy chart, I think you'll see a smaller number of higher order levels in SR4 compared to SR1,2,3, representing the (mostly) unified core mechanics. At the bottom level you still have the same bewildering variety of little things to remember like all the DP modifiers and sub-mechanics like Full Defense, Surprise, Grenade Scatter, and on and on. SR4 is less complicated because there are fewer higher order levels, but it's just as complex as previous editions because of the number of entries in the lowest order level. For instance, in 3rd edition you have the 3rd order level entries of Magic, Combat, Rigging, Matrix and others I'm forgetting. Under Magic you had a lower order entry for each of the traditions, and each of those traditions had a set of lowest order rules. SR4 dispenses with all of the second order entries for the Magic system, essentially turning it from a three-tier to a two-tier system.

Is this making sense?

[Cain]

In SR3 you had Riggers and Deckers and they had different Rules or accessing the Matrix .As a Decker ,you needed
special "Riggerware" even though both used the same Matrix.

Actually, you didn't need that; your decker could add an extra datajack, but then he could rig and deck with the best of them. I ran a rigger/decker for a long time, and I never had different trules for accessing the matrix. You didn't control drones through the matrix.

What about slow and complex and difficult Matrix Rules in SR3 .I've been (and I'm still going) to a lot of Convenbtions. Most often SR3 GM's didn't want any Deckers because the Rules where very Complex. Now in SR4 the hacker is a needed
Member of the Runners Party 'cause the rules are easier (I used to Play some SR3 Deckers, my SR4 Hackers are much easier to Play)

I've heard a lot of people complain about the Matrix rules, but few (if any!) can point specifically to what makes it a problem. I think it comes down to the writing again: SR3 was obtuse and impenetrable, while SR4 is easy to read and accessible. That makes SR4 seem to be easier, since it is more inviting. But the systems themselves are still very complicated. SR4 also uses a bundle of special-case rules for the Matrix, especially if you add in Unwired.

[Paul]

Nice to see you haven't changed a bit Cain. I'm glad you feel the way you do, but not everyone agrees with you. Feel free to give me several more pages of you reinforcing that you like it, but for my dollar and my personal preference no version of Shadowrun, and I've played all 4, does the Matrix in a way I like, or find useful at my weekly table top game.

[Karoline]

Yes, all the more uncommon programs had gonzo names. 4e lines up more with common computer terms (more so), however if your not in the biz the term doesn't mean anything to you.

Analyze, browse, command, Edit, encrypt, reality filter, and scan. The common use programs. I really can't imagine better names for any of them, or any way to make it any more self explanatory as to what they do. Reality filter is the only one I would imagine needing to look up for what -exactly- it does.

Now, for the hacking programs you have Armor, attack, data bomb, defuse, decrypt, medic, and stealth which are all basically no brainers.

Biofeedback filters requires a touch of knowledge about SR, but are fairly easy.

Black hammer and blackout are basically the same, and once again are fairly intuitive once you know basic SR things.

Sniffer, spoof, and eccm might require require you to actually read the rules to know what they do, but for the most part aren't that difficult. ECCM counters ECM, sniffer I actually don't remember off hand, and spoof spoofs stuff, which I thought was a basic English word, and not a technical term, because I've known it for so long.

So yeah, you have three programs which might actually require you to glance at the rules to know what they do in 4e, as opposed to having to try and remember what the esoterically named 3e programs do.

That and it seems easier to go 'I chuck Attack+cybercombat vs Response + firewall' instead of trying to figure out what color system I'm in and figuring out TNs and whatnot.

Same goes for combat in general. Personally I always had trouble working out TNs in 3e during combat, so much easier to just throw Blade + Agi vs dodge/melee skill + Reaction and see who gets more hits.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I agree that there are no more subsystems, at least as far as the core book goes. But in both cases, the subsystems are just a twist on the core mechanic. (Discounting the Maneuver Score, of course--I *despise* the maneuver score.) The streamlining is largely an illusion.


Because that's the rules. You are supposed to build each and every NPC using the PC rules, and eyeballing it or modifying the existing templates is technically cheating. I *like* modifying and eyeballing better, but I don't pretend
I'm following the rules when I do so.

Please show me a reference where it dictates that you must create NPC's with BP's... I cannot find such a reference...
And if this WAS the case, then why do none of the NPC Templates follow such a rule?

[Joe Chummer]

Please show me a reference where it dictates that you must create NPC's with BP's... I cannot find such a reference...
And if this WAS the case, then why do none of the NPC Templates follow such a rule?

I believe the rules SUGGEST creating "Prime Runner" NPCs using the BP system, for the sole purpose of balancing the NPC's power level with the PCs' power level, but that's about it. To my knowledge there is no hard and fast NPCs-MUST-be-made-using-BPs rule.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I believe the rules SUGGEST creating "Prime Runner" NPCs using the BP system, for the sole purpose of balancing the NPC's power level with the PCs' power level, but that's about it. To my knowledge there is no hard and fast NPCs-MUST-be-made-using-BPs rule.

AGAIN... PRIME RUNNERS... not all the NPC's you will ever face...a Prime Runner is your equal or better...
Now, some HTR teams may well be your equal or better, but they are NOT statted out as Prime Runners...

Just wanted to point that out...

Keep the Faith

[Trillinon]

There is one area where I find SR4 to be easier than almost every game I've played, and that's how the dice mechanic works at the table. Tell the GM what you want to do. He tells you the modifier, you grab the appropriate number of dice, roll, and just count. No addition or rerolling (outside of edge). Rerolling always takes up time as the players have to pick out the dice that explode from their mass of dice. And I have always had players who get hung up for several seconds doing simple addition, not because they don't know how, but because their brains aren't well wired for it.

So, in my experience, actions take less time to roll out. As a Gamemaster, I can toss my handful of dice, quickly pick out fives and sixes, and move on.

My only wish is that all modifiers could be to the threshold. That would really speed up play, but as it is, there would be a loss of nuance.

[Karoline]

My only wish is that all modifiers could be to the threshold. That would really speed up play, but as it is, there would be a loss of nuance.

The two main problems with that are that +/-1 TN is like +/-3 DP, and often you want to be able to make a smaller adjustment than that.

Edit: The other main problem is that most tests are opposed, which you can't really adjust the TN of.

Also, I don't know why people constantly go on about TNs being adjusted. There is hardly anything in the game that modifies TNs, virtually everything is adjustments to dice. This is because almost everything in the game is an opposed test, and not a simple success test. So yeah, as much as everyone talks about it being so complicated to have DP and TN being modified instead of just TN in 3e, but really, 4e almost never adjusts TN.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

The two main problems with that are that +/-1 TN is like +/-3 DP, and often you want to be able to make a smaller adjustment than that.

Edit: The other main problem is that most tests are opposed, which you can't really adjust the TN of.

Also, I don't know why people constantly go on about TNs being adjusted. There is hardly anything in the game that modifies TNs, virtually everything is adjustments to dice. This is because almost everything in the game is an opposed test, and not a simple success test. So yeah, as much as everyone talks about it being so complicated to have DP and TN being modified instead of just TN in 3e, but really, 4e almost never adjusts TN.

Agreed, It is pretty rare indeed...

[Joe Chummer]

AGAIN... PRIME RUNNERS... not all the NPC's you will ever face...a Prime Runner is your equal or better...
Now, some HTR teams may well be your equal or better, but they are NOT statted out as Prime Runners...

Just wanted to point that out...

Keep the Faith

Perhaps whoever said that NPCs HAD to be built using BPs confused Prime Runners with standard, run-of-the-mill NPCs.

[Omenowl]

Under the old system you had TNs and also had thresholds. This bugged me. I like the new system better.

The only thing I miss about the old system was group karma pools. I think it added a lot to the group dynamic. Maybe it would be worth adding that as an optional rule for group edge.

[tete]

Karoline, I find your posts offensive, maybe its late and I'm tired but it feels like you are attacking my wife and her opinion directly. As the original poster I ask you to please stop.
I would respond to your matrix post but I feel I could not do so right now without being rude.

[edit] Now that I have calmed down a bit lets see if I can show you where she is coming from. I'm a techie I can't speak 1 language let alone multiple. My wife is a linguist and generally has little to no interest in computers. She just wants to hit print and have a page spit out. She speaks enough languages to make europeans go wow and then she proceeds to speak to them in their native tongue. She played the shadowrun sega game a bit which uses 1e matrix rules and a couple sessions of 3e, she picked a decker of all things because she liked them in the sega game and was able to easily adjust into 3e because the language was the same as the video game. Now enter 4e, I created her character for her because if character creation is more complicated than vampire she already hates the game. Again she would be the decker/hacker by request. She takes one look at what used to be computer and build/repair computer and instead there is computer, cybercombat, data search, electronic warfare, hacking, hardware, and software. She was already unhappy with the result asking when does she use hacking or cybercombat, what is this electronic warfare thing etc. I offered to change it to the group skills for her but she decided to soldier on. She then looks at her commlink it looks different but she knows what a firewall is sorta and the other 3 were easy enough to explain. She looks over her programs and there are many that are farmilar but shes confused. How do I fool the system to break in? (she means deception for the 3e folks) she says... I tell her thats Exploit now... This is about the point where she starts getting pissed and uses her sailor mouth. When she calms down and we go over the programs (eyes now swimming, trying to absorb the information) we get on to game play. We have 1 4e book around the table so its being passed a lot. She gets frustrated by having particular skills matched to programs which is all new terms to her. Does exploit go with hacking or cybercombat? What does analyze and browse use as attributes? Why is it all so confusing and complicated? Why cant i just have my computer skill and hacking pool back, that was easy I only had to figure out what program to use.

That pretty much sums it up. I'm not bashing 4e, it is more consistent and easier to read, but somethings just are not as simple. Like I said 3e uncommon program had more gonzo names than 4e, but 4e chose for better or worse to try some real world terms. These terms don't always translate to people who are not in the field. I found the whole thing very interesting because everyone kept telling me how simple 4e was and to give it another go.

VR 2.0 matrix tns are not as complicated as you seam to think, they were for the most part made up. As a GM you just set the difficulty in the range of the color (Im not saying the colors were a good idea but we had them since 1e). The suggested way in 3e was to roll randomly for difficulty, this tells me you just set a tn within reason for the color. But thats old skool, you dont need the rules to tell you want to do just be a guide. If people played D&D by the book it never would have survived to 3e.

[Karoline]

Karoline, I find your posts offensive, maybe its late and I'm tired but it feels like you are attacking my wife and her opinion directly. As the original poster I ask you to please stop.
I would respond to your matrix post but I feel I could not do so right now without being rude.

I'm not trying to be rude to your wife. I was simply pointing out that for the most part 4e has easy to understand names from the point of view of someone who has never touched SR before. I was also pointing out that the fact that your wife had played the SNES game alot, didn't exactly make her an impartial observer on which rule set was easier. Of course she found sleaze and schmooze easier than encrypt and spoof, because that is what she is used to. I was also pointing out that the fact that you are more familiar with 3e than 4e would have also made it easier for her to play in 3e.

Basically I was countering, very specifically, you presenting your wife's opinion as an objective newbie trying out both system. I wasn't saying that her opinions on the systems where any less valid than anyone else posting here, simply that she wasn't a newbie trying out both systems on equal footing like you kind of presented her as.

The reason I went into the matrix programs was to illustrate that most people who have no knowledge of SR are going to generally be more likely to know what a 4e program does than what a 3e program does because of the odd naming used in 3e compared with the largely straightforward 4e nomenclature.

I think what we'd really need is to have someone who has roughly similar experience with both system run a group of new players through both settings and see which they found easier. Preferably you'd do this with two different groups, running one through 4e then 3e, and the other through 3e then 4e, as there is a tendency to have the first system be considered 'easier' regardless of anything else (Which is why I think some of the people who have played for ages think 3e is easier, because it is simply more familiar to them.)

[tete]

you presenting your wife's opinion as an objective newbie trying out both system.

Your assuming I mean impartial, and I dont! She HATES shadowrun, the fact that I got her to play at all took weeks of persuasion. The fact that she enjoyed 3e was astonishing, cus every other time shes played it or 2e she quit before the game got going.

I think what we'd really need is to have someone who has roughly similar experience with both system run a group of new players through both settings and see which they found easier. Preferably you'd do this with two different groups, running one through 4e then 3e, and the other through 3e then 4e, as there is a tendency to have the first system be considered 'easier' regardless of anything else (Which is why I think some of the people who have played for ages think 3e is easier, because it is simply more familiar to them.)

Assuming you use GM who know the systems inside and out that would be fine. With new GMs you have to consider age and bad writing. Older GMs will be used to wonky badly worded books. My group that is playing 4e right now is my wife, someone who played 2e, 2 completely new guys and someone who loves 4e and convinced me to switch from 3e after 2 sessions of 3e. So far I'm on the fence, I have a learning curve to go through. So far one player hates 4e, two dislike it, one is indifferent, and the guy who convinced me likes it. I plan on going at leased 10 sessions or so before making a final decision. There are things I really like in the new system, things I really dont like, and most stuff I am indifferent on.

[Medicineman]

Actually, you didn't need that; your decker could add an extra datajack, but then he could rig and deck with the best of them. I ran a rigger/decker for a long time, and I never had different trules for accessing the matrix. You didn't control drones through the matrix.

Well I still remember the Riggeremulationprotocols ( I hope its the right translation)
Without these the Decker couldn't rig.And he needet not only a second Datajack,but a different one
Well for Me ,I never Understood,why the Two where so different even though they used the same "tools"

I've heard a lot of people complain about the Matrix rules, but few (if any!) can point specifically to what makes it a problem. I think it comes down to the writing again: SR3 was obtuse and impenetrable, while SR4 is easy to read and accessible. That makes SR4 seem to be easier, since it is more inviting. But the systems themselves are still very complicated. SR4 also uses a bundle of special-case rules for the Matrix, especially if you add in Unwired.

Its not only the writing (though i must admit that the German SR4A has the best written, easy explaning Matrix rules,that I've read ) It's also the rules that are Easier.The SR3 Colourcoding and the....(dammit)
Ok
As a Matrix Jockey you had to play in a very different way.You had to be fast an reckless, not hesitating for one Ini-Pass or the ICs would get you,but If you're too fast you make mistakes.If you want to be careful you'd end up Dead(Security Tally ?). If you want to Play that way as a Street Sam You'd end up just as Dead
So you needed two different Styles of Play in one Group,.... thats not very comfortable !
Also the Matrix Action used to take a long Time in SR3 (If we where really fast,neglecting some of the Rules or "Handwaving" some at least 15-20 Minutes) during which the other Players where forced to watch or do other things (Ordering Pizza f.e) that was a "Funkiller" too !
No in SR4 the GM can switch between Matrix and Mundane World and has a much better Grip at the whole story (no more Pizza for us) its fastpaced and Fun for all
(No thats not the new SR4A Advertising line (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) thats how I think about It )

Hough !
Medicineman

[ravensmuse]

I have to say that reading this did teach me one thing: for npc mooks, just use the same ratings that you would for common devices.

Probably read that in the book, it just never sank in. Kind of like how you don't have to use all 250 of your BP points on attributes.

Shouldn't skim sometimes, I suppose.

Oh! And 4e is the first edition of Shadowrun that didn't make my head wobble when I tried to sit down and figure out the rules. I tried reading the 2e rules the other night and I just blanked. Could it be that the writing was less clear? Quite possibly. But there are a lot of things that you have to watch out for, modify, double check - coming from someone who played WoD games regularly as a teen, 4e rules are a lot simpler to understand. You take the attribute and add it to your skill and roll to see how many five's and six's you get, hoping to hit higher than the eye-ball'd difficulty rating. For extended actions, keep rolling each time until you either fail outright or succeed, but that could take weeks of work. Everything else is usually just a small twist off of that base.

Not that hard.

[tabwaife73]

so where is the first mission starting? and how did bug city end? in case old characters are brought back they should have some idea of how they got out of bug city.

[Karoline]

so where is the first mission starting? and how did bug city end? in case old characters are brought back they should have some idea of how they got out of bug city.

I think you've got the wrong thread.

[tete]

Also the Matrix Action used to take a long Time in SR3 (If we where really fast,neglecting some of the Rules or "Handwaving" some at least 15-20 Minutes) during which the other Players where forced to watch or do other things (Ordering Pizza f.e) that was a "Funkiller" too !

So unless your GM is describing the matrix in detail or your in combat... From VR2.0 and beyond it should really be quicker. Assuming your in the building...
1. Jack In
2. Run Analyze
3. Run Deception, if successful go to 4, otherwise cybercombat
4. Issue the command you want
5. Jack Out.

Now cybercombat could take just as long as regular combat but for most times this shouldnt come up unless the GM thinks he has to have cybercombat.
The other thing in VR2.0/3e that could slow you down is if your not physically jacked into the host you need to be. Then you'll have to repeat that process at leased once.

[Dahrken]

Well, I feel the game in general is simpler and more consistent between the different areas of the game system.

But I can understand your feeling : the matrix rules are more detailed and building (and playing !) a well-rounded hacker is now a much more involved process than before.

[Malachi]

I've heard a lot of people complain about the Matrix rules, but few (if any!) can point specifically to what makes it a problem.

I'll give this one a shot. In SR4 a "system" or "node" (eg. "something the PC needs to hack") is defined by 4 attributes: System, Response, Firewall, and Signal. Under SR3 the equivalent is defined by 7 attributes: a colour code, a rating, Access, Control, Index, Files, and Slave (ACIFS). In SR4, if the Hacker sets off an Alert on the system the GM can determine a random system response with a single roll. Under SR3 an entire "security sheaf" needed to be generated, which (if done randomly), included a dozen or more "steps" or "responses" from the system at random intervals. If your SR3 Decker decided they wanted to intrude on a system that the GM had not pre-generated, the amount of game time taken up to roll one up on the fly was staggering. I actually wrote a program in QBASIC that did it for me. Under SR4, I can quite easily make up a system on the fly: 4 numbers and 1 random roll. Also, because Alert Responses by the system in SR4 are really up to the GM, it allows the GM to have the system respond a little more "organically" and in keeping with the story than the "mini-game" rules of SR3. For example, if the system's primary purpose is to protect some top-secret corp files, but there are also a bunch of other databases, it would serve to reason that the response to a perceived threat against those special files would warrant stronger countermeasures than against other files. The SR3 rules didn't allow nearly as much freedom in story-driven security response such as this.

Here are a couple other examples. To determine if a patrolling IC detects the intruder in SR4 is Hacking + Exploit vs. Computer + Analyze; this happens whenever the GM "feels" that the Hacker may have exposed themselves to detection. This mirrors the "meat world" equivalent action, which would be: Agility + Infiltration vs. Intuition + Perception. In SR3, the IC or system as a whole rolled vs the Decker's "detection factor" which (as a base) was the sum of the Deck's Masking + Sleaze Program / 2, unless the Decker had previously crashed an IC in cybercombat which decreased the Decker's detection factor by 1 unless the Decker sacrificed 1 die from their Hacking Pool to suppress that modified, which meant that the Decker and GM needed to remember that the Hacking Pool had been reduced for all further calculations. In SR4 when an intruder is spotted, then that's it they are "spotted" much like if a physical guard saw a character trying to sneak into some building, but in SR3 "spotting" a Decker merely added more hits which increased their "level" on the Security Sheaf which could mean any number of different things happened. This happened every Initiative Pass. (As an aside, the fact that Hacking Pool was a factor in Decking test pretty much required that they be resolved as "Combat Turns" so the refresh timing of the Pool could be tracked; in SR4 this is not necessary) Tracking Running programs and the swapping thereof is another area where SR4 is significantly simpler: you can run programs = Response (Unwired's extra options aside for a moment). In SR3 your Deck had "Active Memory" (basically RAM) and each program had a "size" that it took up in Active Memory (which needed to be recalculated if the rating of the program ever changed), so the Decker needed to add up all "active" programs to ensure that they didn't exceed the Active Memory on the Deck. If the Decker wanted to swap programs they needed to shut one down with a Simple Action (which is identical in SR4), then load a new one into Active Memory which required finding the size of the program to be loaded (which the Decker pre-calculated and wrote down 99% of the time) then dividing that by the Deck's I/O speed to determine how many Combat Turns it took to get the program into Active Memory (another reason that SR3 Decking actions needed to be run in individual Combat Turns all the time). The same I/O calculation needed to be done when grabbing a file from the system and downloading it into Storage Memory on the Deck, which also needed to be tracked and managed.

I do agree that the options given in Unwired kind of "splintered" things enough that SR4 Matrix stuff at the "lowest order" (to use that previous poster's term) has about as many different options as SR3 had (like Area Attack, Cascading, etc), the "base system" in SR4 is significantly less complicated, as my examples above show.

[Semerkhet]

I'll give this one a shot.
/snip
I do agree that the options given in Unwired kind of "splintered" things enough that SR4 Matrix stuff at the "lowest order" (to use that previous poster's term) has about as many different options as SR3 had (like Area Attack, Cascading, etc), the "base system" in SR4 is significantly less complicated, as my examples above show.

Thank you for the great explanation. My hierarchy scheme doesn't incorporate the number of variables needed to describe a system, so let's just scrap it. Your example demonstrates that fewer variables are needed in SR4 to fully describe a hacker, IC, and nodes. This pretty clearly shows that the SR4 matrix system is less complex.

[Cain]

I do agree that the options given in Unwired kind of "splintered" things enough that SR4 Matrix stuff at the "lowest order" (to use that previous poster's term) has about as many different options as SR3 had (like Area Attack, Cascading, etc), the "base system" in SR4 is significantly less complicated, as my examples above show.

I don't have my books handy, but I seem to recall that most of the problems you present about SR3 were optional rules. Second, the ones like security sheaves were as complex as you wanted them to be-- you could make it go from no alert to full alert only, just like SR4. When I get my books back, I'll be equally glad to show an overcomplicated example of SR4. At the very least, SR4 Matrix uses a different core mechanic than the rest of the book, something SR3 never did.

[tete]

...SR4 is significantly less complicated, as my examples above show.

for the GM, (which is a valid point). However for PCs its MORE complicated. I guess I don't really look at it from the GM perspective as I've been running matrix stuff without pizza breaks since 1e. It wasn't easy in the early days but by the time I understood VR 2.0 it took no more time than the current system on my part. Actually less time but that I believe is because I'm not familiar enough with the 4e system to completely wing it yet.

if people are getting hung up on red - 6/9/8/7/9/6 or whatever its because it looks scary or your rolling randomly.
Basicly your going to pick a difficulty like Hard for Ares, or Easy for no name corp this will pick your color.
Then your picking how skilled they are from 2-12
Then your picking how tough the subsystems are from 4-12

For ares we might pick something like red-8/9/7/10/6/8, I tend to pick how skilled they are and then add or subtract a couple from that for each target number.
While more numbers its about the same complexity (other than the silly color part) as picking system+firewall. System+Firewall does have the advantage of not stringing 5 extra numbers along that add little to the game.

[Medicineman]

. At the very least, SR4 Matrix uses a different core mechanic than the rest of the book, something SR3 never did.

No,It doesn't !
It just switches Attribute and Programm thats all (and its not a different Core Mechanic,what are you talking about,why are you exagerating ? )
SR4 has also the optional Rule of streamlining matrix actions by using LOG & Skill (Maximum successes by Program Rating) Which we are using in one of our Gaming rounds succesfully !
@Malachi
Thanks .(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) what you wrote is exactly what I wanted to say/post

Hough !
Medicineman

[Paul]

Once again people are arguing personal preference, subjective experience and not empirical fact.

[Karoline]

Once again people are arguing personal preference, subjective experience and not empirical fact.

Well, we could (and some are) arguing it along the lines of Occum's Razor (However you spell his name) in that the rule set with the fewest steps to accomplish something is the best (Or at least simplest in our case).

[Paul]

Yeah like I said personal preference. The problem is we all like it different. Maybe to varying degrees,but different. In the end no one's really wrong, rather just different.

Like you I like most of my game to be simple, and involve the fewest steps. However I'm sure we both have some variety, and in the end I just prefer to say as long as you're having fun you're doing it right. Saves a lot of time.

[Malachi]

I don't have my books handy, but I seem to recall that most of the problems you present about SR3 were optional rules. Second, the ones like security sheaves were as complex as you wanted them to be-- you could make it go from no alert to full alert only, just like SR4. When I get my books back, I'll be equally glad to show an overcomplicated example of SR4. At the very least, SR4 Matrix uses a different core mechanic than the rest of the book, something SR3 never did.

Ok, I went back and checked SR3. When crashing an IC, it doesn't modify the Decker's Detection Factor, the Rating of the IC that was crashed is added to the "security tally" (the number of hits that the System has scored against the Decker), but the Decker can sacrifice a point of Detection Factor in order to "suppress" this increase in Security Tally. This is a mechanic in the SR3 BBB, so it's core.

CRASHING IC
Whenever a decker “kills” or crashes IC in cybercombat,
add the rating of the crashed IC to the decker’s security tally.
The rationale for this is that crashing IC is like opening up on a
perimeter guard with full autocannon fire—the action destroys
the guard but alerts his colleagues that company’s coming.
Suppressing IC
A decker can avoid the penalty for crashing IC by suppressing
it when he destroys it. However, suppressing IC lowers
a decker’s Detection Factor. Reduce a decker’s Detection
Factor by 1 for each IC program he suppresses. This reduction
remains in effect as long as the decker remains in the system,
unless he releases the suppressed IC.
Deckers must declare their intention to suppress IC as soon
as they crash it. Deckers may “unsuppress” or release IC at any
time. For each IC program the decker releases, he regains 1 point
to his Detection Factor. His security tally, however, increases by
the appropriate amount for each released IC program.
Deckers cannot suppress IC in a system they have left.

However, having gone flipping back through my SR3 BBB I can add a few mechanics to my list of "not sorry it's gone" from SR3: LTG's and RTG's, IC Initiative and Damage varying by Color Code, the TN IC needing to hit an Intruder varying by Color Code and whether the intruder has a "legit" Account or not, and different "kinds" of IC. I think it is much simpler to say that IC are simply Agents run in a defensive role, with their capabilities being determined by the program loadout that the GM happens to give them. This is easier than remembering that "Cripplers/Rippers" attack Deck attributes, "Tar Babies/Pits" crash Utilities, and "Killer/Blaster/Sparky" IC attack (with varying degrees of lethality). It was almost like you had to remember two different "terms" for things: 1 was the name of the program that that the PC used, and the other was the name of the IC that performed the equivalent.

Here's the thing: none of the SR3 Matrix rules were overly complex in and of themselves. Each one, individually, was fairly straightforward and had a logical reason for existing. However, when you stack enough of them together you create enough "little things" that the PC and GM must remember to make the system slow as someone forgets something and needs to go look it up. I had a Decker PC in my main SR3 group and my runs regularly included a Decking element. We were able to do about 1 "deck" per session with a fair degree of success, but I find I can integrate Decking/Hacking related actions in SR4 and resolve them faster with less "bogging down" of the overall session.

So, Cain, when crafting your counter-example, take note that I have used mechanics from the Core rulebook only. I will concede the point right now that both Unwired (SR4) and Matrix (SR3) added unnecessary complication with the expanded number of options they presented.

However, in the end Paul is entirely correct. A game's system is just the means of facilitating fun. As long as everyone is having fun, it doesn't really matter what system is in use.

[Thanee]

Well, we could (and some are) arguing it along the lines of Occum's Razor (However you spell his name) in that the rule set with the fewest steps to accomplish something is the best (Or at least simplest in our case).

Like the awesome "Head or Tail" rule set, I just made up?

Say what you want to do, then flip a coin. Head: It works as intended, and you describe the outcome. Tail: It fails, the GM describes the outcome.

Doesn't go much quicker. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Bye
Thanee

[Karoline]

Like the awesome "Head or Tail" rule set, I just made up?

Say what you want to do, then flip a coin. Head: It works as intended, and you describe the outcome. Tail: It fails, the GM describes the outcome.

Doesn't go much quicker. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Bye
Thanee

That sounds like an awesome system. Expand it into 300 pages and sell it to someone (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Malachi]

That sounds like an awesome system. Expand it into 300 pages and sell it to someone (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

White Wolf might buy it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

[tete]

No,It doesn't !
It just switches Attribute and Programm thats all (and its not a different Core Mechanic,what are you talking about,why are you exagerating ? )
SR4 has also the optional Rule of streamlining matrix actions by using LOG & Skill (Maximum successes by Program Rating) Which we are using in one of our Gaming rounds succesfully !
@Malachi
Thanks .(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) what you wrote is exactly what I wanted to say/post

Hough !
Medicineman

That would be switching a core mechanic... If you state my system uses attribute+skill but make an exception that certain tests will be different those tests are no longer following the core mechanic. It an easy change in this case but its still not following the core mechanic. If Log+skill was in the core book (like it is in SR4A, but not as the main method) then matrix actions would follow the core mechanic.

d20 has long stated "simple rules, lots of exception", to which I would say then its no longer simple... Shadowrun has always had exceptions because of the subsystems. Before 4e none of the subsystem matched up. Now some of them do, some do not. Perhaps thats why I don't see it being any more simple (overall, certainly there are places where it is), they still have exceptions when I was expecting none where as in 1-3e I expected the exceptions.

White Wolf might buy it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

Yes but the book would talk about this amazing fliping system and how it never gets in the way of your story and then they would add charms, disciplens, merits, feats, humanity, etc where you needed more coins and different ones. Ok if the copper come up with more heads than the nickles your ok but if the nickles get more than half tails...

[Not of this Worl...]

After all the years it has been dead. I find it interesting that 3rd edition still has as much interest as it does. All this has been argued back and forth countless times before that with enough searching could be found in the archives here.

At my FLGS all the local 4e games are winding down and I see a lot of people looking for 3rd edition groups to play with. Unfortunately because there is no product to sell the game store doesn't want to support it.

If you put together a regular 3rd edition game tete let me know.

[Semerkhet]

For the record, I always hated the pre-SR4 die mechanic. Probability of success scaled non-linearly with increasing TN and TN 6&7 being identical drove me nuts. The complexity of SR never bothered me much. In fact, I like some crunch. The change to the die mechanic in SR4 sold me on the spot.

So, I think we've pretty much beaten the specific question the OP asked to death. Now we're just going back and forth on subjective preferences like the one I just stated above.

[tete]

If you put together a regular 3rd edition game tete let me know.

I had one, we switched to 4e at leased till the end of the year. I wanted to give it a fair chance. So far there are some changes I like but overall I still prefer 2e over all others. I will probably end up with some 2e/3e/4e hybrid in the end much like I did with Vampire.

[Cain]

Yeah like I said personal preference. The problem is we all like it different. Maybe to varying degrees,but different. In the end no one's really wrong, rather just different.

Like you I like most of my game to be simple, and involve the fewest steps. However I'm sure we both have some variety, and in the end I just prefer to say as long as you're having fun you're doing it right. Saves a lot of time.

While I agree with you that fun is all that ultimately matters, the ease-of-use of a system certainly makes a huge difference. And the empirical fact is, SR4 isn't any simpler or loophole-free than SR3. I *do* feel that SR4 has much better writing, making it seem simpler and more streamlined. But if SR4 was written with the same clarity and layout that FASA was famous for, people here would complain about how impenetrable it is. I think the SR4 writers deserve some serious kudos for bringing things up to industry standards. (And yes, that is an opinion. Compliments always are.(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) )

[Omenowl]

When more time is spent playing the game and less time is spent over the rules that is always a good thing.

[Medicineman]

That sounds like an awesome system. Expand it into 300 pages and sell it to someone (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Well thats "Engel" ,a German RPG by Feder & Schwert (Translators of World of Darkness) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_(Rollenspiel)
I'm afraid but I can't find an englisch Page.
Its a Post apocalyptic RPG an the Players are Angel fighting for the Angelic Church vs Demons that Plague the Country
(but there is a very Dark and sinister Secret regarding the Chars,the Angels.They're not quite what they appear to be)

He who dances with Angels
Medicienman

[MYST1C]

Well thats "Engel" ,a German RPG by Feder & Schwert (Translators of World of Darkness) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_(Rollenspiel)
I'm afraid but I can't find an englisch Page.

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_%28role-playing_game%29. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Paul]

When more time is spent playing the game and less time is spent over the rules that is always a good thing.

We've always had this house rule at our table: No more than 45 seconds can spent debating any rule at the table, or looking up rules then the GM makes a ruling. Right, wrong or indifferent this ruling stands until after the game is over, and someone decides it's worth going over.

By the by-I like Shadowrun but I feel SR4 feels outdated, old even compared to how SR1 felt like it really was cutting edge. SR4 feels old. I'm not sure I'd give the people at the helm kudos just yet, but obviously I'm still buying product so there doing something right.

[Malachi]

By the by-I like Shadowrun but I feel SR4 feels outdated, old even compared to how SR1 felt like it really was cutting edge. SR4 feels old. I'm not sure I'd give the people at the helm kudos just yet, but obviously I'm still buying product so there doing something right.

There's one I haven't heard before. What do you mean by "old" or "outdated?"

[cndblank]

We've always had this house rule at our table: No more than 45 seconds can spent debating any rule at the table, or looking up rules then the GM makes a ruling. Right, wrong or indifferent this ruling stands until after the game is over, and someone decides it's worth going over.

By the by-I like Shadowrun but I feel SR4 feels outdated, old even compared to how SR1 felt like it really was cutting edge. SR4 feels old. I'm not sure I'd give the people at the helm kudos just yet, but obviously I'm still buying product so there doing something right.

SR 1 proved if you had a cool concept and a lot of top notch background and adventures you don't need a working combat system.

[Paul]

SR 1 proved if you had a cool concept and a lot of top notch background and adventures you don't need a working combat system.

Games have sold on worse. Look at D&D 4e. (And anyone who thinks any published Shadowrun adventure is good has mental health issues.)

There's one I haven't heard before. What do you mean by "old" or "outdated?"

When SR1 hit the scene, and even through much of SR2 much of the tech was beyond cutting edge. You looked at SR1 and said "Wow! That could happen." Much of the tech in SR4 has already happened. It's so rooted in today that's it not really transhuman or on the edge anymore. When I looked at the art in SR1, at the time, I felt like much of it was also on the edge. It took a style we hadn't previously seen. SR4 feels like a bad combination of crappy anime, crappier punktech, and worse bad television spin offs.

Shadowrun when it hit the scene redefined the genre. Shadowrun 4 is all too often described by people by using phrases like "It's like the Matrix, but cooler!" And that's kind of sad for me.

All of that said, yup I'm still buying the product. And yes, I get I can ignore the parts I don't like and make changes as I see fit. I'll make Shadowrun 4 my own game, just like I did previous editions.

[AJCarrington]

(And anyone who thinks any published Shadowrun adventure is good has mental health issues.)

Personally, that strikes me as pretty harsh, but to each their own.

AJC

[Warlordtheft]

Games have sold on worse. Look at D&D 4e. (And anyone who thinks any published Shadowrun adventure is good has mental health issues.)



When SR1 hit the scene, and even through much of SR2 much of the tech was beyond cutting edge. You looked at SR1 and said "Wow! That could happen." Much of the tech in SR4 has already happened. It's so rooted in today that's it not really transhuman or on the edge anymore. When I looked at the art in SR1, at the time, I felt like much of it was also on the edge. It took a style we hadn't previously seen. SR4 feels like a bad combination of crappy anime, crappier punktech, and worse bad television spin offs.

Shadowrun when it hit the scene redefined the genre. Shadowrun 4 is all too often described by people by using phrases like "It's like the Matrix, but cooler!" And that's kind of sad for me.

All of that said, yup I'm still buying the product. And yes, I get I can ignore the parts I don't like and make changes as I see fit. I'll make Shadowrun 4 my own game, just like I did previous editions.

I think the reason it feels old, is some of have been playing it off and on since 1st Ed came out. In 1989-Cell phones were just becomming common. Even then you average cell phone cost a couple hundred minimum. They had wristphones and comminks as headware in the . Nowadays you could get a cell cheap for like 20 bucks and some airtime. In some respects they tried to play catchup with the wireless and other computer advancements since its introduction, but until 4E-the matrix (pre crash 2.0 fluff) required to much bandwith to use a wireless connection. Now that bandwith is there.

[deek]

Paul makes a good point. In SR1, a lot of the tech stuff was still pretty far off in real life, so there was a lot more of that wow factor feel to the stuff in the game.

Looking at SR4, yeah, we still have 'ware, but there's not really a whole lot new since earlier editions and we have wireless today in real life, so its not a huge leap. Plus, the 2070s aren't that far off. I mean, we are playing in the same century, so its just not as far removed.

I don't know how much the developers have done to really look to the future and get creative. I mean, it obviously didn't take much to write in wireless stuff for SR4. It would be nice to have some creative minds think about what's next, and no matter how crazy that sounds today, run with it...

[Blade]

The problem I see with "being creative" with the future and that gets obvious when reading Augmentation is that you quickly enter transhumanism territory. And while I like transhumanism, it'd clearly shift the game in a completely different direction.

[deek]

Well, Augmentation, is my least favorite SR4 sourcebook. I don't know why I feel that way, but the writing is dull and it reads more like a technical manual than anything else. Plus, I have a hard time incorporating anything in that book to my campaigns. They would have done better if they just took all the gear and rules out of that book, published a few online PDFs and called it a day. Augmentation has zero positive effect in SR4...

We've had tranhumanism since SR1 as every piece of 'ware is an improvement, in some way. I really don't see that being a shift. Augmentation just took it to some extremes and is more of a novelty. Seems like a lot of pages wasted for such little impact to the game.

Maybe all the ideas have dried up? Besides the streamlining and incorporating wireless, there's not much different from earlier games...

[Medicineman]

Maybe all the ideas have dried up? Besides the streamlining and incorporating wireless, there's not much different from earlier games...
Technomancer ?
Some of the Runners Compendium stuff (Nartaki,sentient Critters, free Spirits,f.E.) ?
Creating your own Magic Tradition ?
For Me thats quite a lot new Stuff compared to SR3 and whay much more compared to SR1

HokaHey
Medicineman

[ravensmuse]

Well, in a canon sense, Augmentation is a technical manual. It's three or four augmentation catalogues stitched together with shadowtalk and a discussion of black box science: cyborgs, cyberzombies, and bio-drones. So if it reads a little dry, think of it that way. Imo, I think Augmentation is one of the best for the core line (I actually think that Arsenal is the weakest, myself).

The problem with cyberpunk, as someone who is far more literate than I am in the subject (think it was Wesleystreet; what happened to that guy?) put it, is that the environment that created cyberpunk is deader than dead. Japan is no longer a big boogeyman (well, the Chinese are), and there isn't this pervasive feel of dread when it comes to technology. In fact, we've actually embraced it full on and integrated it into the full spectrum of our lives. The environmental situation has marginally improved (based on your own thoughts on the subject) but we're definitely more aware of our impact on the world and the steps we can take in order to live greener.

Plus, a lot of people (like myself) find cyberpunk grimdark just kind of...boring now. I will fully admit to being closer to the fluffy bunny / pink mohawk range than the grimdark grittypunk that many players of earlier editions found so interesting, mostly because I'm far more interested by transhumanism and what technology can do for a person.

(Slight aside: it still astounds me, and I think this is two / three years after the fact, that someone had that big a problem with there being breast and penis implants in Augmentation. Let's face the facts: people buy all sorts of hookum now that claims to be able to enlarge and expand your manhood, even with the vast amounts of literature out there that prove it wrong wrong wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if genital implants were like, the second thing ever invented within the Sixth World - and think about it from the perspective of a runner. There are all sorts of devious things you can do with an implant, especially if you've become Lothario, Destroyer of Worlds.)

I don't find the Shadowrun adventures to be terrible, myself. Most of them work pretty good, with the usual amount of tailoring one would have to do to make it suitable to a group. I was running On the Run just fine for the group I had a year or so ago. Yes, I was making edits - what GM doesn't? - but what was there worked just fine. To say that they're so bad they're terrible is just...an odd thought process to me. And this is from someone coming from a background in White Wolf material...

But as someone said earlier, much of this is subjective, so yeah...

[Semerkhet]

The problem I see with "being creative" with the future and that gets obvious when reading Augmentation is that you quickly enter transhumanism territory. And while I like transhumanism, it'd clearly shift the game in a completely different direction.

Totally agree here. Much of the cutting-edge near future fiction being written right now is buying into one version or another of the Kurzweil/Vinge Singularity theory. Kurzweil would have it take place by the 2030s. Obviously the events of the 2010s and 2020s in Shadowrun would slow things down. Still, by 2070?

Anyway, the point is that the cutting edge of futurism right now postulates a civilization-changing threshold beyond which it is nearly impossible to predict what things will be like. That's totally different from what the mid-80s cutting edge of SF was like. The future is a whole lot more unknowable than it used to be if you go along with the transhumanists. Just about every piece of fiction I've read dealing with transhumanism and the Singularity is from the point of view of those left behind after some flavor of Singularity and therefore living a sort of life that is still knowable to us. See Eclipse Phase (rpg) and Ken MacLeod's "Newton's Wake" for good examples of this model.

Applying the post-human Singularity model to Shadowrun would be such a radical change as to make it mostly not Shadowrun anymore. This leaves the developers in a rough spot. Unlike the SR1 developers, they can't just borrow liberally from the contemporary SF zeitgeist. If you do that, you get games like GURPS Transhuman Space and Eclipse Phase. Instead they have to pick and choose elements of futurism that they feel will enhance SR without making it not SR. This is my long-winded way of explaining why I think that SR4 seems like it only projects a short time, from the present, into the future of technology and society.