 Regrets, Was fourth edition a good business move? |
  |
 Apr 11 2007, 04:06 AM
Post
#51
|
|||
|
Shooting Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 392  |
And this is the single greatest argument for why SR4 was a good move for the company. Teaching SR3 to new players was incredibly difficult. SR4 is smooth and easy to teach. Especially since I usually have 2-3 noobs and only 1-2 experienced players. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Apr 11 2007, 02:13 PM
Post
#52
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,078 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 67 |
My FASA history is probably fuzzy, but I believe the whole print side of FASA was basically created to fund the development of the Battletech simulators, which is what the founders really wanted to do. So for them, ditching the print side for the digital side was probably a no-brainer. But it kinda sucks for those of us on the print side, not to mention those of us who would like to see more digital material that closely corresponds to the print products. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 11 2007, 02:32 PM
Post
#53
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 |
Nah, early FASA print product was mostly Traveler adventure books. That was like 1981 IIRC. Battletch was later. Along with the Star Track combat simulator, etc. My understanding was that the members of of senior management that wanted to remain active in the non-electronic game industry didn't want to do it in Chicago and wanted to do other things. Like Clicks. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 11 2007, 05:27 PM
Post
#54
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,078 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 67 |
The Clicks stuff was part of Jordan Weisman's work though, wasn't it? Jordan was very much a part of the electronic gaming end. He was Microsoft Games' Creative Director, after all.
Jordan Weisman's Wikipedia entry has some info on this. There's also a FASA entry with a history section. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 11 2007, 07:48 PM
Post
#55
|
|||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
You know, I have to argue this point somewhat. I could teach SR3, minus the rigger rules, to a total newbie in a few minutes. Sr4 isn't noticeably easier, but I do have to give it credit-- it's much better laid-out and smoother to follow than previous SR editions. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 11 2007, 07:54 PM
Post
#56
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 633 Joined: 23-February 06 Member No.: 8,301 |
Then I must applaud your teaching skills, Cain. That's not a common experience.
I don't even hate SR3. I like the rules concepts in it, on the whole, a great deal. But I never had any success with it. SR4 was a lot easier for me to jump into. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 11 2007, 08:57 PM
Post
#57
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
I had a longer post earlier today about "hard to teach" but I ended up not posting it.
Pared down, I think a lot of people confuse "teaching a new player SR3" and "expecting a new player to know everything there is to know from the core book, MitS, M&M, CC, R3, etc etc etc". "You roll your skill plus any applicable pool dice, if you want, against a TN that I give you." "You roll your skill + attribute + Edge, if you want, and try to get as many hits as I tell you." Neither one of them is difficult to comprehend, yet both of those players were taught to play. (We're assuming that you explain "what roleplaying is" separately, and that both games require you to tell the player enough of the story to get going.) IMO, everything else in those first few games is up to the GM. Players will pick up more over time, and you will have to tell them less and less. I've never had someone dislike or quit SR3 because it was hard to learn. I've also never had trouble teaching someone the game. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 11 2007, 10:09 PM
Post
#58
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,266 Joined: 3-June 06 From: UK Member No.: 8,638 |
I always found the difficulty with SR3 was all the rules being spread through so many books. Well, that and my GMs frequently had some aversion to actually learning the magic rules... or the matrix rules.
I can't really complain all that much though, as the matrix rules got rather complicated. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 11 2007, 11:43 PM
Post
#59
|
|||
|
Free Spirit Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,950 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920 |
This statement seems incredibly silly to me since SR4 has so far only released two core books. There is no way anyone is going to convince me Street Magic does not contain as many rules as say MitS. If your preference for SR4 lies in not having some rules in some additional core books, you can thank FanPro for having a slow release scheme. Thinking all the rules will remain in a single book when all the core books are published and the product is as mature as SR3 is silly. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 11 2007, 11:52 PM
Post
#60
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 |
That seems to be extremely accurate, matching in pretty much all respects what I had heard from several people closely tied into the the company, some at a pretty high level. And from when I used to game with Andrew Keith when he was writing for them. It leaves out Jordy screwing up fully playtested games by making arbitrarily changes right before printing (like the Star Trek Combat Simulator where one possible effect of getting hit by a photon torpedo was the ship undamaged but 100% of the crew dead), but otherwise it seems pretty much on target. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 12 2007, 01:40 AM
Post
#61
|
|||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
As Ediolon said, was that because you were expected to swallow all the books at once? Or was it because the system itself was hard? My experiences happen to match E's, in this case, almost perfectly. About a year ago, I started a SR3 game with some new players, and they expected that new players would instantly take in all their home expansions to create a coherent character. I can see how that would turn people off. But if your GM is careful, patient, and doesn't hand you too much at the outset, you can teach SR3 to a total newbie, time and time again, successfully. I've done it, Eidolon's done it, and many others here have done it. Teaching skills are just a bonus. Also, was it easier to jump into because the writing itself was better? SR4 isn't any easier to teach, but it does spell things out better. And let's face it, FASA had some of the worst layout issues in the industry. I've discovered that well-written games are much easier to jump into; and like I said, SR4 is by-and-large a well-written book. That's the real "improvement" of SR4-- it brought the writing and layout up in quality. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 12 2007, 02:12 AM
Post
#62
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,206 Joined: 9-July 06 From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 8,856 |
I think the important aspect isn't so much how hard is it to teach a player to play, but how hard is it for a GM to learn. Afterall, the limiting reagent in all RPGs in my experience tends to be good GMs.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 12 2007, 02:14 PM
Post
#63
|
|||||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
But that's what Cain and I are saying. The rules you need to play the game, Shadowrun 3, are found in one book. Now, if you have read the other books enough to see the options that they open up to you, you might feel like you need and/or are supposed to know all of that material, then you might come to the conclusion that you need the other books to play. That isn't the case, though. The only reason this feeling exists in SR3 and not (yet) in SR4, is because the other books for SR4 aren't out there waiting to be picked up and read. I know people are chomping at the bit for Augmentation, et al, but they aren't there. Aren't you playing SR without them, though?
I agree. SR3 does have a bit of a learning curve for the GM, especially if that GM is only familiar with much simpler games. I came into SR3 from AD&D 2nd edition, in which we did not often use many additional rules supplements. It was a major shift for me to go from THAC0 and a die roll for damage to all of the mechanics of SR. But I approached it bit by bit, read voraciously, and learned the game well enough to start running it. There was a progression, of course, from "just combat" to "combat with magic" to "combat with magic and decking" etc. But I believe that this happens any any game with more than one central aspect. I also sometimes wonder if our ever shortening attention span has led to a market that expects to be able to pick up the book and play five minutes later. There are great games that allow for that, and great games that do not. Shadowrun is a great game that requires a bit of investment. And going by what Cain (and others) have said, they did a better job with layout, which can only speed up and aid the learning of the game by that first individual. From this aspect, you might be able to say that it's easier to pick up. I still wonder how much of that has to do with the fact that SR4 players are not yet having to cross-reference five books. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 12 2007, 02:32 PM
Post
#64
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,266 Joined: 3-June 06 From: UK Member No.: 8,638 |
Note that I made no comparison of SR3 to SR4. It is a very fair point that SR4 has not yet released all the supplements that SR3 wound up with, and it is likely that cross-referencing as many rules books as may be released will become a problem. This is the price we pay as players of a game that tends toward gritty, and has so many different aspects (eg. magic, matrix, 'ware etc.) I do find the SR4 core book easier to read than the SR3 core, which is probably, as Cain says, due to improved layout. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 12 2007, 03:45 PM
Post
#65
|
|||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
Note that the "rules spread over a number of books" issue was/isn't the only hurdle (or even the biggest one) in many people's eyes. The bigger underlying problem was that those rules varied so greatly from one another and made referring to them mandatory. SR4 set out to streamline the rules, which many people mistakenly read as simplify (or "dumb them down" as many put it). In fact what the designers have been doing is removing redundancies and focusing on establishing common core mechanics. That's exactly what we've done and it does impact significantly both people's perception of the overall complexity the game and the learning curve. Not only are we reducing the number of separate and distinct mechanics but rules folded under a common and intuitive mechanic. Examples include the way in which 20+ basic spirit types in SR3 have been streamlined to the 9 spirit archetypes in SR4; or the common mechanics for all traditions; or to cite an example from Street Magic, whereas SR3 had no less than 10 different types of "possession" powers/abilities each with its own rules variations and for the most part different mechanicsm in SR4 we have 2 different types of "possession" and will not be introducing any more variations. Having drafts for Augmentation and Arsenal in hand, I can vouch for the fact that the same design philosophy applies there too (ie. toxins, diseases, drugs, bioweapons, weaponized nanites, etc could all use the same basic rules and mechanics, so why not?). So, while SR4 might fall prey to a certain level of rule's bloat as more books come out, the overall complexity is reduced and the number of special situation rules needed introduced is cut down. Consequently Street Magic does indeed contain "less rules than MitS" while retaining just as many options (if not more). |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 12 2007, 04:17 PM
Post
#66
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
We forgive you for having to walk the party line. ;)
I kid, I kid. I don't doubt that many people think that the "one mechanic" model is the best thing since slick sliced cheese, and I'm sure it makes the game a little easier to grok for a new player. My own ... reservations in regard to SR4 has less to do with mechanics than with other aspects, but that's a matter for another thread/day/etc. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 12 2007, 04:22 PM
Post
#67
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
This isn't just Hyperbole on Synner's part. SR3 had:
And that's excluding things that had SR2 rules that never got rules updates into SR3 such as the Horror Constructs from Harlequin's Back. The attempt to combat rules bloat in Street Magic was multi-level. Over and over again arguments were had "can we make a more general rule that covers all of these things". Some will say that we didn't go far enough, others will say we went too far (I know first hand that people on the riting staff, myself included, fall into one of those camps) - but the fact is that we did reduce all of those special instance rules to two rules: Possession and Inhabitation. That allows us to have things like Golems without having to write even more unique mechanics that people would have to look up. -Frank |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 12 2007, 04:38 PM
Post
#68
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Still, though. Those things didn't "tadaaa" appear in SR3. They came about due to constant addition and evolution through three editions of the game.
I'll be impressed if SR4 doesn't fall prey to the same, and if from now on all new ideas are just crammed...um, gently caressed into the existing mechanics. I will. But saying that there were 10 different types of possession in SR3 is not evidence that SR4 will never suffer the same fate. It will take a concerted, consistent oversight effort to prevent such occurring again. You can tell me that that exists now, but supposedly it existed before. Again, I don't have enough experience with the new mechanics to say that I'm arguing that they're bad (or good). Just making the point. I dislike arguments saying "X is better because Y had Z" when there's no conclusive evidence that X does or doesn't have Z. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 12 2007, 04:57 PM
Post
#69
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,078 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 67 |
There are a number of factors at work to prevent this. Like you mentioned, there is careful oversight. The editors know to look for new rules mechanics in material and call the writers out on it if they see it. The editors in SR3 really did not care if we added new mechanics. I know because I added quite a few during my time writing for SR3. If the mechanic worked, it went through. No one was checking to see if it used the same mechanics as past mechanics. No one was concerned about that during SR3. Second, the books are clearly divided up between rules and setting material. This was not the case in SR3, where we were often encouraged to add rules material to the Game Information section of setting books. In SR4, a setting book is a setting book and a rules book is a rules book. There are no new rules in Runner Havens, unlike the new rules often found in the Shadows of... books. I imagine if there were some case in the future where we had to put some new rules in a setting book (and I know there are efforts to avoid this), those rules would be checked to ensure that they follow existing mechanics from the core rule books. And yeah, sure you have to take my word that I'm telling you it exists now, but you can also take my word that it did not exist before. Consolidating mechanics really was not a priority back in the SR3 days. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 12 2007, 05:17 PM
Post
#70
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Cool cool.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 12 2007, 05:48 PM
Post
#71
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 392 |
Yeah? Now did this include the Decking rules as well? Or did you kind of gloss over that too? Or were you in one of those groups who didn't use those rules? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 12 2007, 05:53 PM
Post
#72
|
|||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,579 Joined: 30-May 06 From: SoCal Member No.: 8,626 |
Cheap shot right there. Decking/Hacking has always been a bitch to manage. Regardless of rules. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Apr 12 2007, 05:54 PM
Post
#73
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 392 |
Not in SR4. All the little tricks take time to learn but the mechanics play very fast and easy.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 12 2007, 05:56 PM
Post
#74
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
It gets a pretty bad rap, though. Just like the rest of the rules, if you take the time to learn them, bit by bit, add things as you're comfortable, and if your players make a little effort and don't rely on you (the GM) for everything, it can go pretty smoothly.
Not that I use every bit of them, but then who does? I'd be surprised if anyone uses all of the rules, all the time, for much of anything, in any edition. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 12 2007, 06:18 PM
Post
#75
|
|||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
You tease! You utter tease! *sobs* On the subject of 4th vs. 3rd, another great plus in fourth (I consider the rules a plus), is the quality reworking of the technology and setting to make it more palatable to people of today. No-one in the world of modern technology could take seriously the idea that you had to lug a great big "deck" around in order to do anything useful with computers. Nor that most people couldn't do useful research online or weren't connected to the rest of the world unless they had a big cable snaking from their head to a wall socket. Wireless, AR, commlinks and other bits and pieces make the whole setting much less jarring on a new player's sense of disbelief. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd August 2025 - 02:01 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.