SR3 or SR4, I tried search, couldnt find much.. 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+

[TheUnforgivn]

Hey guys. I tried looking around and maybe I didnt look hard enough but I didnt see this around here.
I've been looking into picking up Shadowrun for awhile know and I'm wondering should I go pick up the SR3 books, or should I go with the newer SR4? I havent played much shadowrun in the past, just mainly looked into it.

Can I get some of your opinions on the two?

[Kagetenshi]

I recommend SR3.

One discussion

~J

[TheUnforgivn]

Thank you, thats what I was looking for.

[mintcar]

I recommend SR4.


It´s mainly a question of taste. If you like a fast (and IMO, fun) ruleset and the thought of a wireless-ever-present computer network a la Ghost in the Shell, SR4. If you don´t mind that the rules change fundamentaly depending on what you do, still think the three dimentional BBS network of Gibson´s is cool, and value tactical application and mathematical finesse over ease of use, SR3.

[LaughingTiger]

Having played both, I reccmoond SR4.

I make that reccomendation becasue to me and my entire group, the rules are a lot easier to learn. They're less intensive, and that fits better with my group.

For example:

I created St. louis Blue, a master decker, with a player. It took us two hours.

I created teh same character. Took us about half an hour, tops.


There's a massive difference in complexity between the two, and I'll always fall on the "easy" side of things, comparatively.

Also, all of the material will be 4th from now. Unless you want to search Ebay for books or do a lot of conversitions, go SR4.

[Kagetenshi]

[Critias]

SR4 benefits: simpler system for faster gameplay, sourcebooks from here on out are SR4, might be a better choice for players newer to RPGs in general.

SR4 drawbacks: simpler system might not be what you want (especially if you already have RPG experience), sourcebooks aren't all released yet (less cool toys than SR3, less cyberware/bioware, less detailed magic, etc).

SR3 benefits: more complex/detailed system, all the sourcebooks you'll need are already published (and can be purchased at used prices, lots of the time).

SR3 drawbacks: The detail-oriented system can slow things down until you become used to it, no new sourcebooks/product support (setting books are SR4 from here on out, and may need conversion to SR3 to keep your game "up to date."

There. Is that fair and impartial enough? For the record (ask anyone), I very strongly and forcefully prefer SR3 -- but I tried to make a fairly neutral breakdown.

[mintcar]

Kage: True. sorry :) . I did try to get to the source of it though, just wasn´t able to be non partial.


Lets just shave it off a bit and say:

Tactial application and mathematical finness, but inherent complexities that are hard to get around—SR3.

Easy to use, bare bones system with a consistent base that is easier to adapt, but containing more stupid details as written—SR4.

+what Critias said, before he edited ;) (just couldn´t help yourself either, could you?)

[jervinator]

Mechanics wise, SR4 wins quite handilly. Problem is that SR3 has so many cool things that have yet to be converted over; it hasn't had nearly the development that SR3 has enjoyed.
I do SR4 and wing it on converting the massive pile of SR3 stuff that is (so far) missing.

[Wounded Ronin]

I'm doing Peace Corps service and will be away from the US for 2 years, so I haven't had the chance to check out SR4.

However, I always loved the tactical aspects of SR3, and recently had started thinking that SR3 wasn't refined *enough* statistically, and that it needed more firearms realism.

So, I guess SR4 would just be very painful to me if I were to read it.

[blakkie]

[mintcar]

:D Häh

[mmu1]

I dislike SR4 greatly, because I think it's a "worst of both worlds" kind of game - a simplistic ruleset that still manages to be clumsy as hell. It doesn't have the tactical options of SR3, and it doesn't come close to the simplicity and ease of play of a real streamlined system. (like Green Ronin's Mutants and Masterminds, for example)

SR3 requires you to roll tons of dice - but there are good reasons for it... So does SR4, but only to make the game "feel like Shadowrun" - it'd have actually been a better game if they'd used a d20 or a 3d6 resolution system, but they couldn't, because then more people would notice it's nothing like the old SR anymore.

[BlackHat]

The Shadowrun 4 board has quite a few threads on this topic. I suggest re-trying a search there.

[FrankTrollman]

One thing to note is that most of the Shadowrun 4 proponents played SR3 for many many years, while many of the SR3 holdouts have given SR4 only a cursory look through. So you understandably see a lot more misrepresentation in pro-SR3 arguments than you do in pro-SR4 arguments. It's not that people like Kagetenshi are being deliberately deceitful, they simply don't know what they are talking about.

In SR4, your cybereyes by default have the ability to store images of things you've seen and subsequently broadcast streaming video feeds to your friends (and receive such feeds as well if you've set them up to do that). They do not necessarily run wide-open wireless the rest of the time (and indeed there are good reasons not to).

SR4 eliminated the propability hijinx of the 6/7 interface, flattened the damage curves so that you could throw around combatants with large weapons and powerful frames (like ships) without resorting to mini-games or rolling hundreds of dice. It really did introduce some new statistical anomalies (such as the even/odd glitch chances or the poorly editted ammunition modifiers), but compared to the statistical anomalies that it closed (the imparity of body and strength, for example), it's pretty minor.

Of course, we've all played SR3 for years, so we've all gotten used to SR3's probllems. SR4 comes around, closes a lot of them, and introduces a couple of minor ones - and suddenly the sky is falling.

-Frank

[mfb]

that might be correct for some SR3 'holdouts', but it's hardly true for all of us. and the definition of minor problems versus major problems varies from player to player.

[Critias]

I am genuinely unsure what good can come from this thread continuing.

[Kyoto Kid]

Frank

Well put. I have been in the SR3 camp for a while since 4 came out but decided, 'Lets give it a look". Well after working with ver. 4 for the last few months (Still don't have anybody running 4 in my locale) I found a number of features that I like and am more than willing to give it a couple of shots, Oh, I still have a few beefs, but once I got the feel of it though Chargen and mock situations, overall I think the system is pretty good.

I particularly like the new decking (sorry, old habit) rules and the way skills are linked to attributes. I also like the Skill Group concept which allow a character to be equally as good in a number of related skills rather than have the purchase them all separately. Actually the toughest part of designing a character is now developing the concept and the "How & Why" this person became a shadowrunner, which is good. Several of the characters I worked up (and reworked from older ones) have extensive backgrounds & in the case of my namesake, KK a very intricate and detailed character (short) story.

The only area I haven't really cracked much was magic, most of the characters (with the exception KK being an adept) are mundane, but even in SR3 I rarely if ever ran an awakened PC. (just am not into managing all the spell stuff and there is already a glut of spell slingers in the group I'm with).

Of course, I am very curious to see what the new supplements will be like (the reason for my group's holdout), but I find the core rules pretty complete and ready to go as is. After all, a good GM will let the players modify their characters (withing reasonable limits) to accommodate any new material that comes down the pike.

[blakkie]

Reruns are to the modern man what locust were to Egypt. A dark cloud of fury sent from an angry God to gnaw at our very being.

[mmu1]

[blakkie]

[Adam]

Don't turn this thread into another personal issues flame fest. Bring it back on the subject -- the game, not the people.

[mfb]

i don't think there's much new that can be said, re: SR3 v SR4. maybe once the next SR4 book comes out, there will be something to complain about/defend. at this point, the only variation in the arguments is how pissed off the parties involved are.

[Nyxll]

Personally, I find that I grow accustomed to whichever system I first started with is sr2 for me. there are some ideas that I like about sr3 and sr4 that I incorporate into the games, but I still find that I have an affinity for the familiar.

I find that sr4 doesn't really do anything better than sr3. I actually disagree with many of the genre concepts in sr4, and I really dislike the static target number. In the end you have to look at which approach you prefer. Variable target numbers or variable dice. Sr4 is quicker, but I find that SR3 is fast enough for me, since I can compute target numbers very quickly, and do not have to continually look up modifiers.

Perhaps Fanpro needs to write some "switch" articles, like apple for their marketing and us holdouts can write our own anti-switch propeganda.

[mmu1]