The ultimate SR4 Poll, Time to settle things! (Not really). Options

[Cain]

If you like Shadowrun, you could make it clearer. It would make people get a lot less angry at you and start a lot fewer flame wars. I know I've seen you directly state that its flaws make it a poor quality game, which is a statement that's hard to square with what you're saying now.

Quote me, then.

I've said its flaws negatively impact its quality, which is true. And since I'm not rabidly pro-SR4, I seem more negative in relation. Moderates always seem like Radicals to Conservatives, and vice-versa.

But I've been playing Shadowrun for twenty years, now. It's the game that taught me to be a gamer. Harlequin is the module that taught me to be a good GM; I still occasionally look at it for refreshers. I am passionate about Shadowrun, both its flaws and strengths. I love Shadowrun, and when I see things being taken away from the Shadowrun mold, I speak my mind. In my head, I have a vision of what Shadowrun can become, and it hurts me to see things go in the wrong direction.

[The Jake]

But I've been playing Shadowrun for twenty years, now. It's the game that taught me to be a gamer. Harlequin is the module that taught me to be a good GM; I still occasionally look at it for refreshers. I am passionate about Shadowrun, both its flaws and strengths. I love Shadowrun, and when I see things being taken away from the Shadowrun mold, I speak my mind. In my head, I have a vision of what Shadowrun can become, and it hurts me to see things go in the wrong direction.

I never got to run Harlequin (but I still read that module and Missing Blood with fond memories). I am in exactly the same boat as you Cain. 100%.

- J.

[Stahlseele]

strictly speaking, system failure (the crash 2.0) is an SR3 book...

Seeing how it includes stuff which is supposed to only be relevant in the SR4 time-line, not in the 3rd, i'd say that it's purely semantics.
As its the lead in to SR4, basically the whole premise SR4 is built on, i will continue to say it's SR4 stuff.

[Bob Lord of Evil]

probably because last i heard the ban on SR3 vs SR4 threads has not been lifted. essentially, some people can't discuss the question of which is better in a civil manner.

Aaahhh...I didn't know that.

Well then, Larme, your poll is as good as you are allowed to make it and I appologize for indicating that you were fishing for a desired result.

[Larme]

Aaahhh...I didn't know that.

Well then, Larme, your poll is as good as you are allowed to make it and I appologize for indicating that you were fishing for a desired result.

Even if I was allowed to ask that question, I wouldn't. I only care how people feel about SR4. SR3 is just not important enough for me to launch a semi formal inquiry into its continuing popularity.

[Bob Lord of Evil]

Even if I was allowed to ask that question, I wouldn't. I only care how people feel about SR4. SR3 is just not important enough for me to launch a semi formal inquiry into its continuing popularity.

Obviously it is a moot point and my appology still stands.

[tete]

I think the rules in SR4A are better than they every have been over all (worse in some places but for the most part improved) but I still think they suck compared to most "modern" rpgs. That would be rpgs with new editions written post 2000. I think there is a very good reason behind the suck though. Honestly they just have a bigger hill to climb. Between magic, matrix, drones, vehicle combat, and cyberware you just have a lot of variables to deal with.

The setting is what sells me, there are parts of the history I don't care for but I love metaplot. Its why I really love the oWOD over the nWOD (Though after playing too much oWOD I get in the THESE RULES SUCK! mode and start playing nWOD). Mechanics aren't everything. Like Cain I'll complain about this rule or that problem but its out of love for the product and I wish the mechanics would stay out of the way of my enjoyment of the game.

I really look forward to SR5 (assuming catalyst still does it) because I hope to see the first set of good matrix rules. I hope they align once again with the magic rules (SR1) so that way we can shrink the subsystems and focus on a fun game people can pick up.

[Larme]

There's no denying that problems are inherited over the years. Mechanics that people still rant and rave about are often little more than holdovers from previous editions. But if you were to change those mechanics, you'd offend all the current fans because you're changing their game. Doesn't matter if their game has problems, they'll resist. No edition will make everyone happy, either it will be too different, or too the same. People get mad no matter which way you go. SR3 people were mad about the very existence of change, and SR4 people are mad about not enough change. The only thing the devs can do is try their best to make an enjoyable game without alienating too many fans.

[Cain]

There's no denying that problems are inherited over the years. Mechanics that people still rant and rave about are often little more than holdovers from previous editions. But if you were to change those mechanics, you'd offend all the current fans because you're changing their game. Doesn't matter if their game has problems, they'll resist. No edition will make everyone happy, either it will be too different, or too the same. People get mad no matter which way you go. SR3 people were mad about the very existence of change, and SR4 people are mad about not enough change. The only thing the devs can do is try their best to make an enjoyable game without alienating too many fans.

While you're right as far as it goes (there's people still playing SR2) I personally cheered when SR3 came out, changes and all. I loved the changes, even if I despised some of the things they left behind (Maneuver Score, anyone?) I also cheered when SR4 was announced, even though I knew it'd have dramatic changes.

It's not the presence of change that scares me. I like some of the changes SR4 made. However, overall I don't like the direction the rules took. I think they went the wrong way.

[Heath Robinson]

Break down of my votes:

• There are about as many rules problems with SR4 as with other games (this, however, doesn't
• I like SR4 about as much as other games
• The general rules are strong once you know how they work statistically
• The game world is fun
• The cybertech rules are neat
• That is all

I might have given Magic the Rules one for Drain if it weren't for Critter powers, and the complete lack of reuse in the overall design.



On the more recent bent of the discussion, I would have to say that I am very much an "SR4 person". Reflecting on that recent thread, it seems I'm far more open to thinking about how to change the game. I'm a programmer (not by trade yet, but by training). I guess this just makes me seem like an ingrate, when it's really one of the ways that I learn about and enjoy the game. I also play it, but not frequently enough.

But let's be honest: This post is going to appear as "You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Heath Robinson" to most people.

[Larme]

Ok, with the results of this poll, I have to ask: why always with the fighting? Two major criticizers of the game have posted to say that they support the game, and in general agree with other people that it's worth playing. Maybe this poll demonstrates the need for moderating one's language. When you comment on something that people really like, and appear to be consistently attacking it as a thing they should not like at all, that's basically a personal offense. Their own sensibilities and opinions are called into question. This can make certain people mad and therefore unreasonable. And that's what causes flame wars.

It's also important to recognize that tone is untranslatable over the internet. People are just as likely as not to misconstrue your tone in a text message, and if shifts closer to "likely" if you have a reputation for being a certain way, i.e. hostile. I've even tried to use simleys to make my tone crystal clear sometimes, and let me tell you -- it doesn't work. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif) To me, a winky face says "hey, just kidding." But to someone who already doesn't like me, a winky face says "I'm smarter than you, turdbrains," or something on that order. To me, a sticking-out-tongue face says "here's some friendly teasing." To someone who doesn't like me, it effectively says "I'm smug because I'm right and you're wrong." The point is, if you don't mean offense, you have to say that with words, not just tone or subtext. Because people will NOT interpret your words the way you wish they would. Chances are, at least some of them will interpret them in the meanest, nastiest way possible. And that's not their fault, that's the limitation of internet.

So, this poll so far doesn't demonstrate anything that shocking. All it says is that the vast majority of us agree that it's a game worth playing. If the detractors could make it more clear that they are not a vicious minority intent on taking the game we love apart piece by piece, the flame wars would be averted. Instead of insisting that everyone who likes a particular mechanic is wrong, instead just say what you personally dislike about it. Don't make it sound like they're retards if they disagree. If you concede that the other side are not stupid, and that they can be reasonable people if they enjoy the game as written, they won't get angry and it won't become a flame war. The vast majority of my battles with detractors have been little more than my arguing that both sides have good arguments. And what do I get from detractors? Absolute, intractable resistance. You might not be on as many ignore lists if you would simply turn the forums from a contest to see who's right into a discussion of each others' preferences.

To be honest though, I'm not going to accept any olive branches from any repeat detractors unless I see them followed up with real action. I'd love it if more of you guys wanted to be good forum citizens, concede valid points by the opposition, and stop arguing when it starts becoming circular and you've got nothing new to add. I've seen it before, threads that drag on and on until they're locked, simply because an opponent can't agree to disagree, can't agree that the other side has any kind of a leg to stand on. All it takes is one simple sentence: "You've got a reasonable position, but I still think my way leads to a much better game." That's all it would take. And unless I start seeing some of that, I'm going to have a hard time accepting these overtures as genuine.

[Bob Lord of Evil]

When you comment on something that people really like, and appear to be consistently attacking it as a thing they should not like at all, that's basically a personal offense.

Interesting...you mean something like this?

SR3 is just not important enough for me to launch a semi formal inquiry into its continuing popularity.

An excellent example...really I could not have come up with a better example...bravooooo.

[Larme]

It was poorly phrased, what I was trying to say is that it's not important enough *to me.*

[Bob Lord of Evil]

It was poorly phrased, what I was trying to say is that it's not important enough *to me.*

Freud would say that your slip is showing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Larme]

It just proves my point that you need to be careful with your words if you want to avoid causing offense. You can't say "this flame war's not my fault because I used neutral language." Other people, reading your language, may very easily mistake neutral for hostile. You always need to be clear what your intentions are if you don't want to start flame wars. Saying provocative things in neutral language is just not what someone who wants a peaceful forum does. The only way to make friendly intentions clear is to state them directly -- if you don't do so, I'll have a hard time believing that you have them.

[Bob Lord of Evil]

For myself, I believe that the biggest problem on forums in general is that a great many people don't know the difference between fact and truth.

Truth is what a philosophy professor teaches.

Fact is what a chemistry professor does.

I see a lot of truth/opinions presented as facts. When that takes places it means that one person is right and the other is wrong. At that point there is slim to no chance that the discussion is going to remain civil.

In the past I disliked the prevalence of smileys strewn about posts...these days I think it required to avert flames. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Larme]

I see a lot of truth/opinions presented as facts. When that takes places it means that one person is right and the other is wrong. At that point there is slim to no chance that the discussion is going to remain civil.

Well I agree there. Like I already said, the majority of my Dumpshock fights have been me trying to convince someone to accept that he's just spouting his opinion, not an absolute objective truth. The response is invariably some form of "No, I already said it was true, therefore it is." That's what makes me think that many of these fights are just trolls, and not serious argument. If it was serious argument, they would reasonably concede points whenever necessary, instead of refusing to budge one micron.

In the past I disliked the prevalence of smileys strewn about posts...these days I think it required to avert flames. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

Like I said, it doesn't do that. People will look right past a smiley if what you said inflames their emotions. They will also misinterpret the smiley. Upside down grin face might, to you, say "Hey, I'm a friendly joking person!" And to them, it might say, "Haha, what a retard you are!"

[GreyBrother]

Upside down grin face might, to you, say "Hey, I'm a friendly joking person!" And to them, it might say, "Haha, what a retard you are!"

Just like in Real Life (IMG:style_emoticons/default/twirl.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Bob Lord of Evil]

It is difficult in having a reasonable discussion on the internet because of the disconnect. There are people out there that are spoiling for a fight. Which is unfortunate, because I would much rather discuss our opinions than get into an argument. It is an energy thing really. Being older I like to conserve my energy for the really important things that I do, like paintball. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Larme]

It is difficult in having a reasonable discussion on the internet because of the disconnect. There are people out there that are spoiling for a fight. Which is unfortunate, because I would much rather discuss our opinions than get into an argument. It is an energy thing really. Being older I like to conserve my energy for the really important things that I do, like paintball. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

That's a mistake people make, IMO -- "don't expect reasonableness, it's the internet," as if the entire series of tubes was all right here in Dumpshock. That's really not the case (thank jebus). Dumpshock isn't The Internet, it is a small part of the internet with defined rules and active moderation. Spoiling for a fight is not something we should accept as inevitable, it is something we should deplore as unwelcome in our little corner. If someone wants to troll they can go to 4chan, or some other board that doesn't care. The problem I have is that certain posters are always in the middle of flame wars that they manage to provoke without overtly flaming anyone. It's just too regular to be accidental. So if those people want to post and say "I like the game and mostly agree with everyone," they should start making that clear in their posts. That would prove that they have some purpose in mind other than starting shit.

[Cain]

So if those people want to post and say "I like the game and mostly agree with everyone," they should start making that clear in their posts. That would prove that they have some purpose in mind other than starting shit.

Or, you could just make the assumption that everyone here is an adult, and is already starting from this premise.

It's not all the writer's responsibility. The reader also takes responsibility for any assumptions he or she makes. Starting a flame war over a misunderstanding is just as bad as starting one over a direct attack. You can assume that someone is trying to start something... or you can assume that they're looking for an intelligent debate. A poster has nothing to prove past his own points. Personality shouldn't matter.

And considering that at least some of the above is directed at me, I'll point out 1) That it takes two to tango, and 2) That while I do not apologize for my debating style, I have and do publically apologize for causing offense. The trick is in knowing when I've caused offense; but when I'm called on it, I always apologize.