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

[Malachi]

A character's backstory is the reason for their stats and qualities being the way they are. Characters don't get "bonus" stuff for having a backstory. In my games, every aspect of character creation has to be approved by me and I don't allow some qualities to enter the game unless the character has an acceptable reason for the trait's existance.

[Cain]

Does this actually happen?
Also simple games fairly resistant that style of rules lawyering.

Yes, this sort of thing happens all the time.

And it's actually the opposite of rules-lawyering. It's plot-mongering, trying to force new cool things into your backstory, thinking the GM will reward you for character depth. It tends to not happen so much in Shadowrun, but I saw a lot of cases of it in various White Wolf games and certain Larps.

[Wounded Ronin]

Yes, this sort of thing happens all the time.

And it's actually the opposite of rules-lawyering. It's plot-mongering, trying to force new cool things into your backstory, thinking the GM will reward you for character depth. It tends to not happen so much in Shadowrun, but I saw a lot of cases of it in various White Wolf games and certain Larps.

This is exactly correct. Read it again, folks, because it cannot be emphasized enough.

[kzt]

Hey, I'll ever buy it, though not the mansions...

Things that give me a hook on the PC are good. I'll reward players for having a backstory that I can work with, but it's not a blank check.

[Shadow]

It's happened to me a lot, and especially here on DSF. I have had to turn away so many characters and be yelled at by players who think being a blind, para-palegic pacifist should give them extra abilities beyond what is in the rules.

[Thadeus Bearpaw]

It's happened to me a lot, and especially here on DSF. I have had to turn away so many characters and be yelled at by players who think being a blind, para-palegic pacifist should give them extra abilities beyond what is in the rules.

I make semi-long detaile stories for my PCs, it helps me get a bead on my character's personality and character. I'll submit this to the GM but I don't expect anything special in return in terms of BP, at most I use the rule of thumb that if you answer the question out of the Runner's Companion 20 questions, I'll give a couple of karma. I have seen this though, it's fucking annoying.

[TheOOB]

I quite enjoyed robins story, I have had players like that before, then I promptly hit them with the GM stick(my favorite solution was to have another player give them their character sheet with only a paragraph of character backround and make them play that character). As a player I think the most I ever wrote about a characters history is a page, and I only gave it to the other players in small bits. If you can't describe your character adequately in a minute, then something is wrong.

However, I feel it should be noted that in no way is that an argument against simple systems. The angsty-emo method actor is present in every RPG (though you see a lot of them in World of Darkness, namely Vampire the Requiem/Masquerade, wonder why? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) ), and a simple system really doesn't increase the chance that you'll get such a player, a rules-light system does. A rules-light system is a system in which there are few clear cut rules about how to create characters or what their abilities can be(burning empires comes to mind), and some how some of those manage to be amazingly complex to play.

On the other hand, a rules-heavy system (D&D and Shadowrun, all editions of each) are very clear what a character can start with and what a character can do. They just have both gotten simpler over time which means your character is less defined by what build option you picked, but how you use what you have. Sure shaman and hermetics are mechanically nearly identically now, but they can still be worlds apart based on skill, quality, and spell selection. In D&D there are less classes and abilities now, but each ability you pick means more and a few differences can make your character dramatically different unlike previous editions where every character of the same build was essentially the same.

Good and bad roleplaying is never a problem of the system, just some systems happen to attract bad role players more often. I will say that simpler systems attract less experianced role players, but that's not inherently bad.

[Cain]

I have to disagree about this being an issue with rules-light systems. For one, White Wolf is a medium-crunch system by any stretch of the imagination. Rules-light is Wushu, which I've never had a problem with.

Second, I have seen this problem in Shadowrun and D&D, just to a lesser extent than White Wolf. Certainly, I've seen people with huge back stories claim that their extensive experience entitled them to a higher level than the rest of the party. Right now, I'm having an issue with one player in Savage Worlds, a medium crunch system, who feels his character should have more starting equipment/cash. I simply point him to the character creation rules, and leave it at that.

[TheOOB]

I have to disagree about this being an issue with rules-light systems. For one, White Wolf is a medium-crunch system by any stretch of the imagination. Rules-light is Wushu, which I've never had a problem with.

Second, I have seen this problem in Shadowrun and D&D, just to a lesser extent than White Wolf. Certainly, I've seen people with huge back stories claim that their extensive experience entitled them to a higher level than the rest of the party. Right now, I'm having an issue with one player in Savage Worlds, a medium crunch system, who feels his character should have more starting equipment/cash. I simply point him to the character creation rules, and leave it at that.

There is pretty much no system out there I would play that wouldn't at least have a mechanic for determining how much wealth/stuff the character gets at creation.

[GreyBrother]

It's not so bad in the Storyteller System (WoD1). The Trick is to tell the player, regardless of gaming system, "Yes, there are no rules that forbid what you built but i don't think it will fit in the campaign." or something along the lines.

A player who brings a submarine commander to a space opera or a gangster into a superheroes story. It just... isn't right.

[WeaverMount]

Interesting, guess I'm the odd/lucky one. I've never had anyone push that. About the simple systems, what many of them let you do is allow people to have whatever they want, it just doesn't count. Take Wushu. If you have the impenetrable fortress as part of your background, and an arsonal that could end small nations that totally fine. You're just telling the GM that you want to RP a scene where you waste 100s of mooks and couple wings of your mansion, and that's ok. There is no -1 TN to dealing with ghouls to argue about.

About the rules lawyering, I guess I just have broader definition they you do. IMO if you ever ask for anything mechanical and then argue your case unexceptably hard (whatever you table sets that standard) then you are rules lawyering. The background attack is just constitutional amendment level lawyering.

[shadowfire]

I think the problem stems from the fact that most games, even level based one, do not strictly say, "all beginning characters are novice or apprentices of their trade." So players think that they have experience beyond this fact and that the game should reflect it.

[shadowfire]

There is pretty much no system out there I would play that wouldn't at least have a mechanic for determining how much wealth/stuff the character gets at creation.

Everway: this game did not have that type of mechanic. Also check out other games like: Panty explosion, Magical land of Yeld, Shooting stars, Shooting the moon, Primetime Adventures, ect. there are many games out there that do not fill the need to have that mechanic, buecause it is not needed to play the game. I think even BESM did not have it.

[Naysayer]

I seem to have been missed? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
I can't recall to ever have liked 3rd edition, though, so there must be some confusion on behalf of the OP...

More on topic though:

I'ts been almost three years since the release of SR4, so it's understandable that the main brunt of nerdrage has somewhat subsided, and only flares up when kindled again, as by making a careless statement in the general direction of a die-hard SR3 vet...

I for one was very very pleased with the edition change, I have stated several times that 3rd ed. drove me away from Shadowrun, as I disliked both the (to me) overblown cartoony style and feel of the game and the sluggish overburdened rules (which, were more or less, SR2 with lots of extra baggage).
SR4, from the first peek at the rulebook, felt just so much more like the Shadowrun I had grown up with...

[ravensmuse]

Everway: this game did not have that type of mechanic. Also check out other games like: Panty explosion, Magical land of Yeld, Shooting stars, Shooting the moon, Primetime Adventures, ect. there are many games out there that do not fill the need to have that mechanic, buecause it is not needed to play the game. I think even BESM did not have it.

ISTR that BESM had a Wealth option that worked like the Money background in WoD. I've never read 3e BESM, so I can't say if they stuck to it.

[Malachi]

There is pretty much no system out there I would play that wouldn't at least have a mechanic for determining how much wealth/stuff the character gets at creation.

The first RPG system I ever learned had no mechanic for starting resources: the Star Wars D6 system (by West End Games, not that Wizards of the Coast monstrosity). Here's what the rulebook says about it:

List reasonable starting equipment for (your) character. The gamemaster has final say over what is "reasonable," striking off any equipment, or assigning disadvantages (such as owing money to a crime lord for a ship, or your character's equipment is stolen and the original owner is trying to get it back.) The gamemaster isn't even required to tell you about disadvantages if the character wouldn't know about them.

[ElFenrir]

I sort of take a middle-stance on ''starting with weird things.'' I recall one time, our friend who was GMing let us each all start with one special little item; just something in our backgrounds. it was nothing gamebreaking or anything, but they were there.

While Mr. Ronin's story is, ahh, terrifying, if used properly, little things like this don't HAVE to be bad.

For example, a player who is playing an old character(let's say some ware made them a bit more revitalized physically), who'se a gunslinger; but since he's old, he's more old-fashioned. Let's say the rules don't have a very old fashioned revolver and rifle(i think now they do, so it's cool, but using it as an example.) They actually request if they could maybe work with the GM in tweaking the stats for one of the rifles to make it more like a very old-fashioned Western rifle; SS, black-powder, whatever. Even if this didn't exist in the rules, I wouldn't see a problem with it. Likewise, I remember before there were rules for throwing axes(when only RAW was out), I wanted my Norse Odin-Worshipping mystic adept to have thrown axes for his ranged weapon, and me and the GM worked out a reasonable design for them.

Keep in mind both of these examples don't have someone having the item for free, but they might not be covered by the rules.

Another example-say the said gunslinger above wants to play an adept, and he requests to split his Improved Firearms dice in a Geas-type thing; he gets half the bonus all the time, and the full bonus when using the original pistol he got when he was a kid. I don't see anything wrong with this either, and it's only kinda half covered by the rules(geasa tend to be all or nothing by RAW.)

Another example-say someone is playing a Norse Shaman, and wants the Berserk power-but their particular mentor spirit doesn't have it, they aren't an Adept, and the quality is usually only purchasable by Changelings...but they don't want to be a Changeling. I don't see what's so wrong with letting them spend 10 BP on the Berserk quality if they aren't a Changeling. Again, they're still paying for it and it fits the character, IMO.

So I think there IS room for some rule-quirks in backgrounds; but if taken to the extent of Mr. Ronin's example...yeah. It's gone a bit too far.

[Cain]

It's one thing to allow someone to buy an ability they'd have trouble with otherwise. It's another thing to demand a laundry list of them for free, all because you wrote a 20-page backstory.

[ornot]

Heheh. Wounded Ronin's post about 'roleplayer' players was dead funny. I've been luck that I've not had to sit through that at the table, although when I used to WoW there were a lot of folks with that kind of 'backstory' who felt a need to expound on great length about how they'd been raped by a demon or some shit. Funny the first few times, boring as hell afterwards, and at no stage even remotely interesting. I get kinda fed up with players that demand attention through absurd backstories that would be deemed too ridiculous for a genre soap opera, even if they don't try to use it to demand a list of freebies.

[ElFenrir]

I think some folks just have a problem separating actual drama from cheesy melodrama. I wish more could learn that yes, a strong piece of drama or tragedy in a background isn't a bad thing; the shadows aren't the happiest place in the world. I mean, blowing sunshine up someone's ass for three pages can be just as dull. But...there is a line, and it is very easy to cross. I mean, surely SOME good stuff happened in their lives rather than them having been mind-raped by horrors for twenty years of their life. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Stahlseele]

that in itself would not bee as bad as some of the stuff humans tend to do . .
horrors are straight up about them wanting to torture you . . but only humans let you find real happiness only to make you watch as it gets all taken away and then irrevocably destroyed beyond any repair . .
read the wolverine comics series . . every time he was happy, yep, everything gets taken away and he gets mindraped again and made to believe that it is in fact all his own fault

[Daddy's Litt...]

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)

Or those of us who still play 3rd ed have given up trying to explain why we like it in the face of intollerance from some of the 4th ed. people. #rd ed is not coming back so it does us no good to rant against 4th ed. We just ignore 4th ed. It never happened.

[Malachi]

Hey, there's nothing wrong with that. Edition choice ultimately comes down to personal preference so there's nothing wrong with sticking with SR3 and there's nothing wrong with going to SR4.

This is one SR4 player that is not "intolerant" to the SR3 players, so I'm hoping I won't get any "intolerance" in return.

[Larme]

Or those of us who still play 3rd ed have given up trying to explain why we like it in the face of intollerance from some of the 4th ed. people. #rd ed is not coming back so it does us no good to rant against 4th ed. We just ignore 4th ed. It never happened.

As I recall, there wasn't that much explaining why 3rd ed people still like the old edition. It was a great deal of explaining why 4th was horrible and anyone who liked it was retarded, IIRC. AFAIK, every 4th ed player likes 3rd well enough (at least those who used to play it), and though we have criticisms, it's not like we want it to go away. Which is not something that can be said for 3rd ed die-hards much of the time...

[nezumi]

AFAIK, every 4th ed player likes 3rd well enough (at least those who used to play it),

Firstly, that statement is false. There are plenty of people who came on and said "third edition was terrible, that's why I quit shadowrun, but 4th edition brought me back again". And of course, there are people who never did play 3rd edition (obviously, you clarified your statement, but the base statement doesn't stand on its own).

That said, not a lot of people would speak against 3rd edition because this is a shadowrun forum, and at the time, 2nd/3rd was basically the only game in town. Everyone on dumpshock at the time had played SR3, and 90% played it as their chosen edition (since the only other option was 1st). That's sort of a gimme given your sample audience. It doesn't show that SR4 players are more tolerant, just that when you take a room full of SR3 players, the vast majority of them also like SR3.

If you move over to a site which is not so heavily tied to SR3, like RPG.net, you'll find that a lot more shadowrun players (past and current) who spoke out against SR3. Once SR4 hit the markets and there was a significant population of people who came to dumpshock ONLY for SR4 stuff, you got a group of people who were against SR3. And even when the room was basically only SR3 players, you got a lot of people who were simply nasty in their arguments as to why SR4 was better.

After the initial conversations, as you got more people who were unfamiliar with SR3, and therefore didn't already know what made SR3 good, real comparisons as to why SR3 was specifically better (as opposed to just the assumption that SR3 is very good, and therefore if SR4 is anything less than very good, it's worse than SR3) became necessary and thusly more common. Before then, any discussion comparing SR3 to SR4 was simply superfluous. And of course, on other, non-Shadowrun sites, the comparison was always relevant, and came up in discussions almost immediately.