My Assistant
Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)
  |
 SR MMO, what edition would you want? |
  May 2 2006, 06:35 PM
Post
#51
|
|
|
jacked in  Group: Admin Posts: 8,006 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 463  |
Not everyone must like every game. :)
Bye Thanee |
 |
 
|
|
May 2 2006, 07:51 PM
Post
#52
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
that's not quite how it works. they have an innate talent, the way a gifted artist has an innate talent. that doesn't mean they don't need to practice in order to hone that ability; it just means they don't need book learnin' to progress. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 2 2006, 08:03 PM
Post
#53
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 16,898 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Interesting. That wasn't the feel I got from skimming the PHB, but I will admit that I gave it a very brief skim indeed.
~J |
|
|
|
|
May 2 2006, 08:08 PM
Post
#54
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
They're kinda like almost every other class can be portrayed if you want: innately capable of <fighting / sneaking / praying> but need to practice (by fighting monsters and overcoming other challenges) to hone their skills.
|
|
|
|
|
May 2 2006, 09:28 PM
Post
#55
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
well, check the first line in the description:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 2 2006, 10:51 PM
Post
#56
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 225 Joined: 1-November 05 Member No.: 7,917 |
Ok, not that I like the degeneration of this thread, but let's bring up DDO for a second:
1) It had more to live up to than it could ever deliver. D&D is the ultimate PnP RPG and nothing they could have made in recent years would have satisfied the people who have played for decades 2) This is the first version of the game and those often suck (anyone still play first edition D&D, why again?) 3) (I suppose this is mostly IMO, but...) Everything Atari touches turns to shit (need I say more?) 4) Also, IMO again, but...the WOTC projection that Eberron is the definitive D&D universe is (IMO again) completely wrong. It is a novel Universe in some respects, but not representative of everyone's experience with the game (it was largely introduced for that reason). (Here is where I express my love of Forgotten Realms, but I also really would have just settled for Greyhawk). Analyzing that person's specific commentary, it is a simultaneous an argument for and against direct mapping of PnP game mechanics to an MMO. On the one hand, he directly highlights their deviation from the PnP's rules (also citing cross-editioning as bad), warning people away from using the game rules because they are so flawed in their implementation; however, imagine how much angrier he would have been if they hadn't used them at all. I think this is too small a sample size. Let's fix that |
|
|
|
|
May 3 2006, 04:28 AM
Post
#57
|
|||||||||||||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
But it's not. It's set in our technological future as that future was viewed in the 1980s. And there's no reason that it ever had to be brought into alignment with our present. In fact, it could be argued that by bringing the SR world more into alignment with our present, they're no longer writing a game about the "future". ;)
While this is true, there were (and are) many people that didn't (don't) use much of that stuff. Also, it was always presented very much as an "optional" addition. There was never a day that TSR put out a new edition and said "well, we've just been told that Rome had better gods, so from now on the game only uses those."
We're aware of that. It's simply an easy reference point, because it has come to convey the difference in "feeling" between the two editions.
It's set in a fictional conjecture of a possible version of our technological future, with it's past, up to about the year 2000, being pretty similar to ours. There, I fixed it. ;)
But you've missed my point. The D&D world was a generic semi-medieval time period setting. SR had/has an internal setting that's just as much removed from reality as D&D is. There is no "need" for the SR world to always directly correlate with ours. You mention that you can google various things used in SR and get real world hits. I counter that while that's true, few of them will match up with their in-game portrayal.
This is not a problem for some of us. |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
May 3 2006, 04:32 AM
Post
#58
|
|||
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
Sorcerers. Nothing from SR3 is gone, simply improved. That's not a problem for some of us (SotA:xx). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 3 2006, 04:40 AM
Post
#59
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Ah, but improved is a matter of opinion, much like our choice of rules set.
And if you'll notice, I was speaking of the days and releases of TSR. WotC fairly well did put out an edition and say "we just found out that Rome had better gods." See: why I prefer AD&D 2nd to D&D 3.X. |
|
|
|
|
May 3 2006, 04:47 AM
Post
#60
|
|
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
Yeah, and TSR went out of business... Hum, makes you wonder. Adam posted a great article about why TSR lost out, but I'm not in the mood to go find it.
I prefer the flexibility of SR3 but the love world of SR4. With D&D, I prefer the flexibility of D20 and 3.x to that of AD&D, but prefer the world flexibility of AD&D. |
|
|
|
|
May 3 2006, 05:27 AM
Post
#61
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
I'll just say that I agree, for some people it isn't a problem, and that's cool for them. For some people it is, and that's cool for them. The problem arises because SR does not have a static audience. It's hard to attract new customers to a game set in the future when technology doesn't meet expectations. I can easily picture something like the following at a game store: Prospective buyer: Dude, I heard Shadowrun is pretty cool. Maybe I'll check it out and see if my group likes it. Fellow shopper: Yeah, it's got a cool premise, but the tech sucks. You can't even get a wireless connection at coffee shops. Prospective buyer: Huh? That is pretty stupid. I guess I'll check out something else instead. You can't get a large number of teenagers in 2006 to buy a game by telling him "it's based on what some guys in the 80s thought would be the future." Heck, you couldn't do that with most people who weren't alive in the eighties (or at least alive enough to know what was going on socially). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 3 2006, 02:31 PM
Post
#62
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 16,898 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I can picture that exchange.
I can picture it being made up by someone trying to prove a point. I can't picture it actually taking place spontaneously, let alone more than once. ~J |
|
|
|
|
May 3 2006, 03:14 PM
Post
#63
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
You can't imagine one game telling another gamer sucks? Have you ever been to a game store and/or talked to gamers?
|
|
|
|
|
May 3 2006, 03:19 PM
Post
#64
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 16,898 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I absolutely can imagine them saying a game sucks. What I can't imagine is them doing so because the game doesn't have wireless in coffee shops.
~J |
|
|
|
|
May 3 2006, 03:25 PM
Post
#65
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Oh, I'm sure that if asked they would go on to explain all the other things that make the level of technology unbelievable. But for most people, a game set in the future that doesn't have wireless networking would be enough to make them wonder what the hell the designers were thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
May 3 2006, 03:55 PM
Post
#66
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
Am I the only one who mourned the demise of the decker and the cable sphagetti that gave Shadowrun that jolt of the Matrix feeling?
|
|
|
|
|
May 3 2006, 03:55 PM
Post
#67
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 16,898 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I would debate that with you, because I think you're wrong, but there's no point because your premise is flawed. It's already been said, wireless tech is (as of the printing of Matrix) available to anyone with cell or radio access. And that's before getting into the fact that in a simsense world wireless is obsolete. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 3 2006, 04:02 PM
Post
#68
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
People wanting to try a new game don't want to have to buy antoher book (Matrix) just to make one portion of the technology believable.
Wireless is obsolete? So the data moving around just teleports? |
|
|
|
|
May 3 2006, 04:24 PM
Post
#69
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 16,898 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
See, that's what it does when it supposedly goes over a wireless connection. Let me introduce you to a man called Claude Shannon.
~J |
|
|
|
|
May 3 2006, 04:33 PM
Post
#70
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
James the reason that simsense may see a temporary end to wireless is that simsense is data intensive
and to date wired methods of data transfer remain fatser than wireless ones |
|
|
|
|
May 3 2006, 04:39 PM
Post
#71
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Wired methods will probably always be faster than wireless simply because you can't go optical with wireless, but that doesn't make wireless obsolete, especially when considering that technology will progress. If you assume that transfer methods progress fast enough to keep pace with data needs, wireless is here to stay.
|
|
|
|
|
May 3 2006, 04:44 PM
Post
#72
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 16,898 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Ok, I'll admit I should have explained.
My point is that unless data needs stop progressing, wireless transfer methods will fail to keep pace. The reason for that is the same reason that optical is such a good transmission method: there is a theoretical limit to how much information you can transmit (including compression) given a certain bandwidth and noise level. That limit isn't very high, especially when you consider that the signals to everyone else are going to be noise to you. "Obsolete" was too strong a word. Low-data-rate needs will always be met by wireless barring a catastrophic increase in noise level for some reason. That said, as a primary datamover, wireless will be obsoleted by widespread high-data-rate usage. ~J |
|
|
|
|
May 3 2006, 04:50 PM
Post
#73
|
|
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
I don't agree. People will take the hit in performance for the portability. They already are with their cellphones. With the massive memory capabilities of SR4, one could easiliy create an active-x system for simsense, a type of client side scripting that removes the brunt of transmission. The majority of bandwidth would be people downloading updates for this - and that could be done at home on a wired system (perhaps at the same time one recharges the batteries).
|
|
|
|
|
May 3 2006, 04:55 PM
Post
#74
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 16,898 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Er? I'm not exactly certain what you're saying here relating to ActiveX.
~J |
|
|
|
|
May 3 2006, 05:29 PM
Post
#75
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
I believe he is talking sort of along the lines of an Actor Model.
Attempting to reduce bandwidth requirments by encoding very dense messages that utilize data that is already shared between the nodes prior via higher bandwidth methods and letting the nodes do the processing to expand/decode the dense messages out into their full form. As for the "via higher bandwidth methods", never underestimate the bandwidth of a truckload of floppy disks traveling down the highway at 100 kph. :) |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 13th April 2022 - 01:19 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.