Broken, is Broken Options

[Muspellsheimr]

Can we also abolish the acronyms for the Anniversary reprint (and the corresponding errata)? I'd like to be able to say SR4 without referring to old versions of the game. I've, personally, stopped using SR4A precisely because using it implies some actual difference between SR4 last year and this year.

No. One key reason not to merge the two (of several) is page references. The book has a different layout & page numbers than the previous printing. Further, not everyone has SR4A yet, & may not for quite some time (even after it's in print, many will likely rely on the errata & earlier printings).

Until SR4A is actually in print, perhaps it should have a unique marker.

Even after it is in print, it will likely take at least several months before enough SR4 books have been replaced to have any form of reasonable justification for altering/merging the terms used.

[Draco18s]

Because saying so is not required. Nearly all of my house errata has been made because of gameplay experience. I have as much house errata as there is official errata, & guess what? The game is significantly better balanced because of it.

Right. Our GM threw out Chunky Salsa because it made it too easy on the players (when using grenades), not to mention they'd outright kill players too (when the NPCs use them)!

[Heath Robinson]

No. One key reason not to merge the two (of several) is page references. The book has a different layout & page numbers than the previous printing. Further, not everyone has SR4A yet, & may not for quite some time (even after it's in print, many will likely rely on the errata & earlier printings).

Even after it is in print, it will likely take at least several months before enough SR4 books have been replaced to have any form of reasonable justification for altering/merging the terms used.

So I'll refer to the book as the Anniversary BBB. To call the game that you play using the rules presented in that book SR4A or SR4WWLOMTB implies that it's a different game - which is not true. This implication is exactly what the SR4.5 folks' complaints are based off, and to continue to treat the games as different linguistically is as much as strengthening their position.

Names have power, if only in the way we think.

[BullZeye]

So, from now on,
No more using "broken" but something more like "this doesn't work in my game, any suggestions how to change it to fit my group better?".
The game shalt be called SR4, not SR4(a) or whatever.. though when giving page reference, then one ought to tell which book one is quoting for others.

right?

[Caine Hazen]

Until SR4A is actually in print, perhaps it should have a unique marker. As far as I know the Shadowrun run at Origins and Gencon, with Catalyst support, will be without the Anniversary Edition changes..

I would suggest reading today's chat log then... cause this information is wrong. Missions and the other games at the major Cons are using the latest errata, hence, SR4A printing.

JohnDunn> Shadowrun Missions always follows the latest published edition, so SR4A currently.

[BlueMax]

I would suggest reading today's chat log then... cause this information is wrong. Missions and the other games at the major Cons are using the latest errata, hence, SR4A printing.

Wrong seems a bit aggressive. Have I offended you?
Your quote shows clearly that my information was "out of date".

BlueMax
/optimistic that all of the GMs have bought SR4A pdfs
// and are ready
/// isn't himself

[BishopMcQ]

BlueMax--

Yes, all of the GMs should have either purchased the PDF or downloaded the Errata. As it has been said, the errata is free so there is no reason not to have it except for either laziness or lack of information. (I chose lack of information instead of ignorance, since ignorance has its own special connotations.) Missions are run with the most recent errata, and all page numbers now reference the SR4A printing.

The division between SR4 and SR4A will always live as the page numbers are a little off between the books. (Damn the extra fiction and pretty artwork that got added to the book.) Though I'd suspect that information regarding street dates will be released in the near future--I'm guessing here--because there has been talk on the Twitter feed about actually holding up a copy of SR4A to a webcam. My guess is that this was a real book, not a PDF flashed to the screen.

OP--I agree that the term "Broken" can be inflammatory and is not precise to the needs of the community as a whole, though it may apply for the individual. My official tables run entirely RAW, and I've never had someone tell me that they don't like the game. Whether they were just trying to not hurt my feelings, I don't know, though I've had long discussions about rules and variations with people at conventions. At my home table, I run with a slightly tweaked system--Edge refreshes at the beginning of each assignment (when the Runners say "Yes we'll do the job") and my one-off games run with the Tweaking the Rules Cinematics 4+ is a hit instead of 5+. The one-offs are meant to be 1-2 session games that I run because we have people missing from our normal game or it's seasonal. On Bastille Day we're going to blow Paris back to the stone age--It will be our game for July 5th and 12th and have absolutely no impact on the real campaign.

[Tiger Eyes]

Technically, when we (and by we, I mean freelancers and/or developers) refer to SR4A, in long hand we say "Shadowrun, Fourth Edition, Anniversary Eye Candy Printing" - but since we all got tired of typing that, we switched to SR4A. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) All future SR4 products will reference the BBB in "Section Header, p. XX, SR4A" format, to reduce confusion for readers. (Note that generally speaking, page references have the section header in there, such as "Electronic Warfare," so readers with a non-Anniversary printing will be able to still find the reference, it just will require a tad bit more work.)

And yes, I do believe there has been a sighting of a printed copy, as mentioned on the twitter feed. In fact, I bet my GM has one in his hot little hands right now... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[BishopMcQ]

That's only because your GM cheats. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Tiger Eyes]

That's only because your GM cheats. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

The sad part is he's gotten to hold a copy and I haven't! The injustice!

[Shinobi Killfist]

I don't think you should have to write "in my opinion" every time you make a declarative statement about a rules issue. What you do need to do is, if someone says "you mean, in your opinion right?" you need to say "Yes, of course I'm talking about my own opinion." The thing that starts flame wars is someone saying "No, this is not my opinion, this is the only way to decide the issue." I dunno how you conduct yourself on the forums, but as a general matter, that's how it needs to be. Failing to make that basic admission leads to pages being 13+ pages long and being locked.

If you don't have to write IMO every time because it is assumed, why would someone ask? Only reason I can think of is because they are douche bags trolling for a fight. The type of people who deserve any asshole response you give them. The person asking the question and forcing the issue is being the rude aggressor, since again the IMO is assumed.

...in your opinion. See? Now we all feel validated. You get to tell us how your game, to you, is a lot better with all of your changes. But it's no longer an offensive slur on everyone who disagrees with you, you're no longer insinuating that we play the game wrong or that the game we love is too shitty to play as-is. All it takes is those three words and everyone's happy.

How nice of you to provide an example in the same post.

[Larme]

If you don't have to write IMO every time because it is assumed, why would someone ask? Only reason I can think of is because they are douche bags trolling for a fight. The type of people who deserve any asshole response you give them. The person asking the question and forcing the issue is being the rude aggressor, since again the IMO is assumed.

I don't think the IMO is assumed. Why don't I think that? Because I have asked people, "you realize that this is only your opinion, right?" and they have responded, without a (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif) face or anything, that it's not just opinion, that their way is the only right way. Assuming the IMO makes an ass out of u and me, because with some posters, it's patently false assumption. If you are a reasonable person and you know that everything you say is just opinion, that other people can have equally valid positions on an issue, it shouldn't hurt you to say so if someone asks. It is not rude to ask people if they realize that I'm just as entitled as they are to hold an opinion. I'm saying, in effect, "Maybe we disagree, but you can at least concede that there are two sides to the issue right?" The douchebag is the one who says "no."

How nice of you to provide an example in the same post.

No, that wasn't an assumption, it was a question. I asked Mus[whatever] if that was what he meant. The rest of the statement was intended to convince him to agree with me on that count, by showing how it's offensive if he says "my game is better than yours because of my house rules," but not if he just says "IMO, I have a much better game thanks to my house rules." In other words, it was a query and not an assumption. Given his past conduct, I am very far from assuming that he accepts the validity of dissenting arguments or admits that his ideas are anything other than objective truth. I'd love to be proven wrong, but so far he hasn't said anything to do so.