Naysayers gone?, Not much "SR4 SUX!" anymore... Options

[WeaverMount]

i play pen and paper RPGs because i like the ability to be creative. D&D 4th edition appears to have been designed with the intent of punishing, discouraging, and restricting player creativity in order to make the game run more quickly.

Ah this is where you can do a little bit of judo on the system and find an amazing game.

I have very broad taste in what I can get out of an RPG. I like building super collaborative settings. I like RPing tense political situations, I like optimizing the the hell out of a character. I like factoring in RP opportunity into "equations" for optimization. I like stimulationist combat. I like thinking through the effects of events on a speculative universe. etc

When it comes to rules system, I've been spoiled by hyper specialist systems. What GURPS and Wushu have shown me is that that no hybrid system can compete with a pure breed at what it does. Even Feng Shui doesn't do 98% action blood opera as well as Wushu. At this point in my gaming life I don't want a system that does anything poorly. I want a rules that directly lead to memorable experiences or get the hell out of my way.

D&D is does just that. It creates mechanics in only one arena: Combat. This allows for some really good tactical combat. It keeps all the players engaged because they are all relatively balanced. No the Best part is that keeps it's grubby mits off everything else. You want to craft stuff? Great, Free form it. No anemic crafting system to get in your way. Want do "legwork" great free form it. And that my friends is the Judo. Use only rules that rock. Free form everything else. In some groups that works like a charm. That's what I love about 4th ED. IMO it's not just another top tear rule set. I brings a new play style to the top tear club.


----


I realized that I strayed a little from what I quoted. Specifically to respond to that, 4th ed does really limit character builds. It does not limit characters per se. The rules are so focused on combat and to agnostic about everything else that actually enables you to do whatever you want! Hello for people who are really into RPing a character it should encourage people to create an actually character because reflexively RPing from your stats is pretty weak under those rules.

[WeaverMount]

I disagree with you. I think the threads were well settled. SR3 has more granularity and more flexible mechanics, SR4 is simpler to understand and quicker to operate.

If you want a quick, transparent system, or a system with a shallow learning curve, definitly, SR4 is the way to go. If you want a system that can do more, or carries more statistical accuracy or canm operate under a wider range of circumstances, SR3 is the way to go (speaking of mechanics only). If you want a setting based more on modern technology, SR4. If you like the 80s, enjoy classic cyberpunk, or like the alternate history future, go with SR3. I think everyone agreed that SR4 is probably better for most people who are completely new to the system, or scared off by SR3s complexity.

The big debate was 'what defines Shadowrun' and, based off of that, which of the two versions is closer to that original vision. Defining identity is almost always a difficult task.

very nice

[Jaid]

Ah this is where you can do a little bit of judo on the system and find an amazing game.

I have very broad taste in what I can get out of an RPG. I like building super collaborative settings. I like RPing tense political situations, I like optimizing the the hell out of a character. I like factoring in RP opportunity into "equations" for optimization. I like stimulationist combat. I like thinking through the effects of events on a speculative universe. etc

When it comes to rules system, I've been spoiled by hyper specialist systems. What GURPS and Wushu have shown me is that that no hybrid system can compete with a pure breed at what it does. Even Feng Shui doesn't do 98% action blood opera as well as Wushu. At this point in my gaming life I don't want a system that does anything poorly. I want a rules that directly lead to memorable experiences or get the hell out of my way.

D&D is does just that. It creates mechanics in only one arena: Combat. This allows for some really good tactical combat. It keeps all the players engaged because they are all relatively balanced. No the Best part is that keeps it's grubby mits off everything else. You want to craft stuff? Great, Free form it. No anemic crafting system to get in your way. Want do "legwork" great free form it. And that my friends is the Judo. Use only rules that rock. Free form everything else. In some groups that works like a charm. That's what I love about 4th ED. IMO it's not just another top tear rule set. I brings a new play style to the top tear club.

it's not that D&D limits itself to combat only. i could deal with a lack of a robust crafting system. i could even deal with some of what are frankly completely nonsensical rules that don't help with suspension of disbelief even (though i still won't *like* said rules).

but here's the thing. back in 2nd edition, there were dozens of options available to a spellcaster right off the bat at first level. sure, you could prepare magic missile, but you could also have jump, spider climb, sleep, charm, etc. 3rd edition more-or-less continued that trend, with dozens of options right off the bat. 4th edition? no, sir. you don't even have a choice of any power that doesn't make things go boom, except for 1 of your powers that you get eventually which they call 'utility' powers, which can instead be a power that just makes you better at making things go boom, or it can even be a power that makes it harder to make you go boom. back in the day, i could use an illusion spell, or change shape, or any of a number of options. in 4th edition, i can make things explode. that's pretty much it. depending on what class i choose, i might have different degrees of explodey-ness, or be able to explode two people at a time instead of 1, but they don't even consider the possibility that i might just want to be able climb up a wall, walk on water, put an obstacle in between me and my enemies, or summon a monster to help out. my options are to shoot stuff, shoot stuff extra hard, and shoot stuff extra super duper hard, with various degrees of movement involved. i don't even have a choice whether i want to cast a mount spell, or a spider climb, or a wall of wind, or a transmute rock to mud, while in combat. they have deliberately limited my options in the name of speeding up gameplay, and while i can understand what they did and why, i'm certainly not interested in playing that kind of game. basically, anything that might make a DM have to actually think has been removed. and the whole reason i like pen and paper over CRPGs is that there is a living, thinking, sentient being who can give me the freedom to explore options that aren't just multiple choice.

[ahammer]

it's not that D&D limits itself to combat only. i could deal with a lack of a robust crafting system. i could even deal with some of what are frankly completely nonsensical rules that don't help with suspension of disbelief even (though i still won't *like* said rules).

but here's the thing. back in 2nd edition, there were dozens of options available to a spellcaster right off the bat at first level. sure, you could prepare magic missile, but you could also have jump, spider climb, sleep, charm, etc. 3rd edition more-or-less continued that trend, with dozens of options right off the bat. 4th edition? no, sir. you don't even have a choice of any power that doesn't make things go boom, except for 1 of your powers that you get eventually which they call 'utility' powers, which can instead be a power that just makes you better at making things go boom, or it can even be a power that makes it harder to make you go boom. back in the day, i could use an illusion spell, or change shape, or any of a number of options. in 4th edition, i can make things explode. that's pretty much it. depending on what class i choose, i might have different degrees of explodey-ness, or be able to explode two people at a time instead of 1, but they don't even consider the possibility that i might just want to be able climb up a wall, walk on water, put an obstacle in between me and my enemies, or summon a monster to help out. my options are to shoot stuff, shoot stuff extra hard, and shoot stuff extra super duper hard, with various degrees of movement involved. i don't even have a choice whether i want to cast a mount spell, or a spider climb, or a wall of wind, or a transmute rock to mud, while in combat. they have deliberately limited my options in the name of speeding up gameplay, and while i can understand what they did and why, i'm certainly not interested in playing that kind of game. basically, anything that might make a DM have to actually think has been removed. and the whole reason i like pen and paper over CRPGs is that there is a living, thinking, sentient being who can give me the freedom to explore options that aren't just multiple choice.

when you have a spell that does not need a roll realy that compeatly repaces a skill it is overpowered.
yes they lower the power of wiszerds.

[Larme]

I disagree with you. I think the threads were well settled. SR3 has more granularity and more flexible mechanics, SR4 is simpler to understand and quicker to operate.

If you want a quick, transparent system, or a system with a shallow learning curve, definitly, SR4 is the way to go. If you want a system that can do more, or carries more statistical accuracy or canm operate under a wider range of circumstances, SR3 is the way to go (speaking of mechanics only). If you want a setting based more on modern technology, SR4. If you like the 80s, enjoy classic cyberpunk, or like the alternate history future, go with SR3. I think everyone agreed that SR4 is probably better for most people who are completely new to the system, or scared off by SR3s complexity.

The big debate was 'what defines Shadowrun' and, based off of that, which of the two versions is closer to that original vision. Defining identity is almost always a difficult task.

I don't think you disagree with me, I think you agree with me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) The debates were settled as to "which game is better from point of view x." That's what I'm talking about as something that's easy to figure out objectively. But they were never settled as to one game being "good" or "bad" objectively. That's because there are too many ways to enjoy RPGs, and you can't just stick on a general label like that without having a comprehensive theory of what makes a game good, which everyone can agree on.

The question of "what defines Shadowrun" sounds like a lot of masturbation to me. The above argument is useful, because players who like a certain kind of game will know which one they'll probably enjoy more. But once you know what defines shadowrun, where does it get you? At most, if you win the debate, you get the moral satisfaction of knowing that you are playing "real" shadowrun. I'll play whatever the hell I want to, and I won't be deterred by anyone arguing that it isn't the real deal (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Wounded Ronin]

I remember not too long ago when there were multiple 10+ page threads with people arguing whether SR4 was good or not. It usually hinged on whether GM discretion was an acceptable thing to rely on in an RPG (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif) . Also, some people though that if something is released with typos, that means it's "low quality" (though I think most of them still played it, so I'm not sure why they cared what "quality" label we put on it).

Are those people gone? Have they given up trying to make us dislike the new game, it being not-so-new and firmly entrenched as the replacement for SR3 at this point? I sure hope so (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

WTF? Of course it sucks. That's why I never bought the 4th ed rule books. I was just under the impression that people were getting in trouble with the admin for saying that it sucks.

[Wounded Ronin]

I'm sad to hear that Frank is gone. It's true that he could be pretty irritating when he got into a flame war about the stuff he hated in SR4. But it was nice when he used his insider information to nuke silly rules interpretations that the devs never intended.

He was one of the best. He understood game rules in a way that most people never attain. The loss of him represented the loss of some of the best rules analysis I've ever read.

[masterofm]

SR4 is not a good system because of lack of clarity on the rules, lack of playtesting, lack of forethought, lack of balance, and lack of functionality of the rule set. Character generation is a long winded process, if your character does not have 3-4 IPs they get to sit most of the combat out or get wailed on, and combat can take up more then half of the table time even if you are prepared. SR4 is a confusing mess and when you want to try to consult the rules that are not in the BBB or street magic you go through an unhelpful index which will generally have you coming back to it more then once (Arsenal had me look for something for over 20 minutes before I realized that it was on an obscure page in the weapons section... stupid super guns or whatever it's called.)

What it does have going for it is amazing history and fluff/concept that has persisted for over 20 years. Now the good almost makes up for the bad, but SR4 did not create the history, or the setting, or the concept. I enjoy the concept, and the attempt to simplify the rules, but for every rule book that is added it feels like it just adds a whole other needless layer of complexity to a game that could use some toning down with the added dig of lack of foresight on rules that have been previously implemented.

So yes I don't like SR4, and I don't like where it is headed, but I'm not going to sit there and argue with people who are on the other side of the fence. It is an argument that has no point as I believe it's a bad system just as others believe it is a good system. Heck if you like the game that is fine and wonderful. It's not for me though, and as soon as our group finishes up with our story arc we are going to stop playing SR4, and will no longer buy any more books.

[Shadow]

It's funny, those were all the things they pointed at 3 and said, "this is why we make 4". Shadowrun is a complex system, I like complex systems. I don't want a dumbed down game. I like combat that takes thought and tactics, not a system where you have 2 options for combat and that's it.

[WeaverMount]

it's not that D&D limits itself to combat only. i could deal with a lack of a robust crafting system. i could even deal with some of what are frankly completely nonsensical rules that don't help with suspension of disbelief even (though i still won't *like* said rules).

but here's the thing. back in 2nd edition, there were dozens of options available to a spellcaster right off the bat at first level. sure, you could prepare magic missile, but you could also have jump, spider climb, sleep, charm, etc. 3rd edition more-or-less continued that trend, with dozens of options right off the bat. 4th edition? no, sir. you don't even have a choice of any power that doesn't make things go boom, except for 1 of your powers that you get eventually which they call 'utility' powers, which can instead be a power that just makes you better at making things go boom, or it can even be a power that makes it harder to make you go boom. back in the day, i could use an illusion spell, or change shape, or any of a number of options. in 4th edition, i can make things explode. that's pretty much it. depending on what class i choose, i might have different degrees of explodey-ness, or be able to explode two people at a time instead of 1, but they don't even consider the possibility that i might just want to be able climb up a wall, walk on water, put an obstacle in between me and my enemies, or summon a monster to help out. my options are to shoot stuff, shoot stuff extra hard, and shoot stuff extra super duper hard, with various degrees of movement involved. i don't even have a choice whether i want to cast a mount spell, or a spider climb, or a wall of wind, or a transmute rock to mud, while in combat. they have deliberately limited my options in the name of speeding up gameplay, and while i can understand what they did and why, i'm certainly not interested in playing that kind of game. basically, anything that might make a DM have to actually think has been removed. and the whole reason i like pen and paper over CRPGs is that there is a living, thinking, sentient being who can give me the freedom to explore options that aren't just multiple choice.

First you actually can do about half the things you say can't. And I'm perfectly comfortable with "nerfing" magicians. The more flexible magic is the more broken it is. I have yet to see an exception to this rule. So if you want balance and the ability to fight with magic you basically have to deal. Oh and look every single character can use any spell they want to out of combat. I just don't see 4E restricting the stories you can tell, and I do see it improving the tactical experience.

But to bring this back around to the point I was trying to make. 4E does something very well, and doesn't get in the way of you doing other things free form. I really don't think you can ask more of a system, and I'm happy to have my array of hyper focused games expanded.

[Larme]

WTF? Of course it sucks. That's why I never bought the 4th ed rule books. I was just under the impression that people were getting in trouble with the admin for saying that it sucks.

Troll much? I wasn't really trying to start a flame war, I was just wondering if the controversy had died down. I'd appreciate, as a matter of courtesy, if people would at least make a minimal effort not to troll.

[Cain]

Troll much? I wasn't really trying to start a flame war, I was just wondering if the controversy had died down. I'd appreciate, as a matter of courtesy, if people would at least make a minimal effort not to troll.

Ease up a bit. There were more than a few warnings/suspensions handed out at the time amongst the naysayers.

[shadowfire]

You can only beast a dead horse so much.... but hey if you want to know if tghe naysayers like myself are still here, pop up a poll.

[masterofm]

Or you know... create a thread where you make a dig at the people who don't like the new edition and then back off saying that it's everyone else's fault but your own. Although I don't know why anyone would do that.

[shadowfire]

thats crazy, crazy i say......... crazy enough to work.

[The Jake]

First you actually can do about half the things you say can't. And I'm perfectly comfortable with "nerfing" magicians. The more flexible magic is the more broken it is. I have yet to see an exception to this rule. So if you want balance and the ability to fight with magic you basically have to deal. Oh and look every single character can use any spell they want to out of combat. I just don't see 4E restricting the stories you can tell, and I do see it improving the tactical experience.

But to bring this back around to the point I was trying to make. 4E does something very well, and doesn't get in the way of you doing other things free form. I really don't think you can ask more of a system, and I'm happy to have my array of hyper focused games expanded.

You must be clearly playing by a different set of rules then.

- J.

[Malicant]

He's playing the same set of rules I use, as it would appear. Where some people see restrictions, others see possiblities. Those are the people who can enjoy 4e, I guess.

[Shadow]

I have no doubt. And I am glad that the system works for them. For me it doesn't. I still think SR3 had it just about perfect.

[Fortune]

Shrug. I like the new D&D4e. I like SR4. I like Ike.

[Shadow]

Your an Aussie, you don't get to say that (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

And.. Hey Fortune *waves*

[Larme]

Or you know... create a thread where you make a dig at the people who don't like the new edition and then back off saying that it's everyone else's fault but your own. Although I don't know why anyone would do that.

You know what you should do? When someone does something bad, do the same thing back. Because two wrongs definitely make a right. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Seriously, I won't pretend that I'm not responsible for this thread's existence. That's why I'm asking people not to troll. Arguing is fine. Even good natured digging is ok. I just want everyone to remember: we're all friends here. Nobody has harmed anyone else, and nobody deserves to be flamed. So please, let's just be nice, reasonable adults. If this thread is too much of beating a dead horse, we should just let it die.

[Fortune]

Yo Joe! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wavey.gif)

[masterofm]

I have said my piece.

I also said that to be silly more then a dig to your OP. The main reason why I find a thread like this to be not very helpful is because it only digs up what doesn't really need to be dug up. Some people like a complex rule set, and some people don't. Some people like sci-fi only, and some like fantasy only. The people who don't like SR4 have as much of a valid reason to hate it as the people who like it.

Different strokes for different folks. However it is unlikely to believe that either side will suddenly "see the light" and switch over. I and my group however are just slowly getting sick of SR4 for various reasons. Maybe these reasons will become apparent to you one day and maybe they won't. In the end it doesn't matter and just creates the huge potential to become a flame war.

I would say it's more like beating a post-dead horse. Kind of like a horse that has already gone to the glue factory and you are trying to beat the individual packets of elmer's glue saying that it was once a dead horse that still needs to be beaten. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Muspellsheimr]

and nobody deserves to be flamed.

[Insert Flame Here]

[Larme]

I also said that to be silly more then a dig to your OP. The main reason why I find a thread like this to be not very helpful is because it only digs up what doesn't really need to be dug up.

You're right of course. I just got curious one day, and made a post about it without considering the consequences. Apres moi, le deluge! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif)