Book Club: Runner Havens Options

[Cain]

Let's leave it at "designed to be malleable"-- I won't pull the dictionary argument on you, we all know that malleable means "easy to change".

Fisty: I'm not saying the content is bad (OK, I am saying *some* content is bad) but also where it belongs. If we had a chapter on cyborgs in the middle of Runner Havens, it'd be the same sort of thing. A great deal of the Seattle content would have gone a long way in describing a generic sprawl, the monoculture DE and AH is referring to. All of that's good material, but I'm arguing that it doesn't belong in a core setting book. The statement that it was designed to be so is just icing.

[Demonseed Elite]

We are getting off-topic again.

The impression I am getting is that Cain does not feel that much of the Seattle content is "Seattle" enough. I think that's a fair opinion, but I'm not sure there is much more that can be discussed on that topic.

[Cain]

There's still the question you posed about global monoculture and local cultures. In this case, rather than say Seattle was bland by design as to be easily converted into anywhere else, we discuss rather or not it was designed to show the North American corporate culture at the expense of local flavor. And rather or not that belongs in a Core Setting, let alone a book about core settings.

[Ancient History]

Of course, you could make the argument that the monocultural aspects of Seattle are part of its local flavor.

But this is really a lot of discussion for what amounts to one post in the beginning of the chapter.

[Cain]

[Ancient History]

If it's characteristic of the place, it deserves mention. 'sides, it's clearly stated in the book that it isn't the whole sprawl that's like that. You're trying to make mountains out of molehills mate.

[Cain]

If it's a characteristic of everyplace, it's not worth mentioning at all. At least, not in a book about a unique place.

My argument is that the section was designed to show global monoculture (Ok, it's not, but that's a nice way of putting it) at the deliberate expense of local flavor. You can't tell me that this was the point of the whole book, because Hong Kong certainly doesn't fit this pattern.

When you compare the two sections, there can be no doubt. I could delete just about every single major place name from the Hong Kong writeup, and I'd still be able to turn to almost any page and know where we're talking about. The local flavor shines through, in bright Cantonese Neon signs. We're not given an example of the global monoculture. Even though, as you pointed out, it's there-- I *ate* at a McDonalds in China-- there's no wordcount wasted on the characteristics of everyplace.

Now, Seattle. If I used white-out on the major place names, you wouldn't know where we're talking about. Not until you get to the one sentence about the Space Needle and Pike Place Market would you be able to identify it. Now, supposing that this is because the goal was to show the urban monoculture-- the aspects of a city common to every city-- then you did a fine job. However, if you intended to show a living, breathing city, like Hong Kong, then it fell flat. I'm inclined to believe it's more the latter than the former, but I've been wrong before.

[Cain]

[Ancient History]

[Cain]

Then what are you saying? Silence is assent.

[Ancient History]

At bedrock, Seattle is a gateway for people and goods to pass through. That's its reason for being, that's the foundation of Seattle as a setting from the first edition on down. So part of Seattle's identity, it's local culture, is a nod to the global monoculture. It's something very basic, something most people would overlook-which is why it needs to be pointed out. Which is why I made the one comment that you've been kvetching about, which taken in context doesn't even apply to Seattle as a whole.

If we'd spent the entire chapter going on about how Seattle was the lowest common denominator of North American cities, that would be waste of space. We did not. One of the things you consistently gloss over is that the Seattle in Runner Havens is not the Seattle of today. There are different landmarks, different ethnic groups in prominence, and different establishments. You might not recognize the local flavor in Seattle, but that doesn't mean it isn't there-or that it was designed from the get-go as someplace for GMs to come in, file of the place names and turn into any other city.

[Cain]

[Ancient History]

[Fortune]

[Cain]

I'll put up a challenge, then. How many people here can replace "Seattle" with "Boston" on the first two pages of the chapter, and have it make perfect sense?

My main arguments are as follows:

• The Seattle chapter was designed to be easily changed ("malleable") into generic sprawls. Proof: Bull's quote.
• There's some very good writing in the chapter, but it's far to easily portable into other cities. Proof: AH's solid writing ability, the white-out test.
• There's some very bad writing in the chapter, in particular the Governor's race. Proof: Various PM's I've recieved both here and on RPG.net.
• There are some good sections that do a good job of tying into SR Seattle history. Proof: the ACHE.
• There's a ton of in-jokes, which actively alienate newer readers. Proof: Responses on RPG.net.

Some of my *opinions* are as follows:

• Atmosphere was sacrified in favor of in-jokes.
• The Seattle chapter was meant to be almost completely interchangeable with any other city in North America.
• Despite some good writing, much of the chapter misses the point of a core setting.

[Cain]

[JBlades]

[Cain]

You're right, to a degree. Certainly, more material on the 6th world in general would be very appreciated, I think the "Living on the Edge" section was a good idea, if way too sparse for its job.

But when it comes down to it, you get a setting book for the setting. I didn't buy the Denver set so I could run a game in South Carolina. In a core setting book, I want core setting material, not easily portable stuff.

If they had released much of the information as a NAGRL or SOTA:64 book, then the material would have been excellent for its job. As it stands, though, it's not what you expect from a core setting. Stuff to design a core setting with, sure. But not core setting material.

Bottom line is, the material is a good thing in a book designed to teach you how to build a sprawl. It's a bad thing when it tries to replace a city.

[Ancient History]

[martindv]

Just because this is amusing as hell.

I excised the commentary, but left everything else intact, more or less.

[Fortune]

Well, I'd know it was talking pretty much specifically about (the Sixth World) Seattle. Not too many other cities fit the geographical description (including surroundings) and the accompanying AR fluff is just gravy.

[Cain]

I'm too lazy to type out an enitre section. Let's do two paragraphs, then.

[Cain]

Couldn't sleep.

[Demonseed Elite]

I do want to clarify a couple of things. No disrespect to Bull at all, but he wasn't a writer or developer on Runner Havens, to my knowledge. I know I was never, ever tasked with making my entry to Runner Havens a place that you could file the serial numbers off of and transport somewhere else. And I absolutely did not write it that way. A GM is free to take material from the Hong Kong entry and use it in Macao, Sydney, Indianapolis, or wherever they want. But it wasn't written for that purpose; it was written for Hong Kong. Whatever your feelings are, I would not put too much weight on Bull's comment, because it was not part of the official design philosophy.

Two, the "core settings" comment. The sprawl series, of which Runner Havens is the first, provides information on SR4's signature settings. Seattle and Hong Kong are not really the core settings; you could make the argument that Neo-Tokyo and Los Angeles will be just as much core settings. I know that plot material will focus on the signature sprawls and will not be limited to Seattle and Hong Kong. Seattle and Hong Kong will probably remain more "natural" settings, because they are runner havens. But if you run a more corporate-heavy campaign, Neo-Tokyo and Los Angeles will probably feel more natural for your group and feel more like core settings.

About the writing in Hong Kong and the whole monoculture discussion, I deliberately avoided mentioning too much monoculture in the Hong Kong write-up (there's a bit here and there about corporate fashion and Nu-You clinics). I didn't imagine it is a place with a heavy monoculture, even though it is a gateway city and very global. Since the goal of the writing piece is presenting Hong Kong, I weighed the writing towards pointing out the things that make Hong Kong unique. That comes down to writing economy and what I felt, as the writer, was more valuable to the reader.

Something else to note: Seattle comes with a special layer of difficulty for the writers. Nearly all the monoculture that has been presented in Shadowrun since 1989 has been presented through the lens of Seattle. Stuffer Shacks, DocWagon, even NERPS, are things that have all been linked to Seattle just because that was the Shadowrun setting in earlier editions.

[Prime Mover]

Wish I had more free time, missed alot of this Seatle discussion. The flavor seemed less then bright to me as well but for different reasons. The original Seatle book really set the tone for SR and alot of its flavor. IMO Both New Seatle and Seatle entry in Runners Havens were a product of not wanting to step on the pasts toes and trying to update without losing the "feel" of SR's home turf. This left me feeling like both were watered down out of a sense of respect not a lack of effort. So much has taken place in the last 20 years game time certainly Seatle has changed in feel and flavor but it's entry only scratches at that the surface of those changes. With a majority of the entry giving me a cut and paste feel.