Sooo I read Anarchy... Options

[Sendaz]

This is why we can't have nice things....

ETA: Good Lord, I really need to update my sig.

Heh

So will it now include Knight Errant of Errata? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Overall I am liking the concept of Anarchy, and yeah there is still some needed tweaks, though we are still wrapping my head around a few other parts of it, but I am older and slower now so takes longer to learn new tricks. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[hermit]

It's not in-universe because of the content of the sidebars, it's in-universe because of the design the sidebars and everything else are obviously designed to look like an in-universe electronic document.

So the text is not about its content, but about the layout of the page it is printed on. That doesn't make a bit of sense. Do you even realize that?

[tete]

I think im mostly with hermit on this one...

I'll probably run it and house rule it, but i really hope CGL forgets this "your way to rpg is wrong" garbage that has become popular. When it was just a handful of indie games it was interesting because it made you think about if you agreed or not but we have those games we dont need every game to be a lockeroom game as stated earlier. I like the idea though, hope we see this type of product going forward.

[Mantis]

So how does this play compared to the regular game? Faster, more streamlined? How much more or less prep does the GM need to do and how much of that can the players help with?

[Gingivitis]

I feel like I am about to get jumped on, but here goes:

This plays faster and more streamlined than SR5. Character generation is 15 to 20 minutes and game play goes by roughly twice as fast. Each Turn --a round of Narration, roughly equivalent to an Initiative Pass--goes by faster because each character gets one action or attack (possibly two with Wired Reflexes, etc.). The action is more equitable because, those without Wired, are not pushed back into the dark corners of combat.

The drama is more equitable too because combat-monsters still have a Narration to do, even in social scenes.

The GM needs drastically less preparation. Contract Briefs are one page, and consist of three scenes. Each scene simply describes where they are, what the runners might try to accomplish and what their likely obstacles are. You are encouraged to speed up, change, eliminate, or add scenes as necessary to further the plot of whatever you and your players get up to. You could easily run a scene knowing only 1-2 key pieces of information that you want to be discovered or encountered.

That being said, this game is not for those GMs that want to push their players through the novel that they have written. Imagine how sideways a normal, highly-prepped SR5 game goes, and then add another dimension: Plot Points. Plot Points are what drives the meta-game within Anarchy. They are spent to twist the plot or take actions outside or above Narrations, and they are earned by good role-play or exciting/humorous/dramatic Narrations. This goes back and forth between players and GMs until a story emerges that will likely be very different than the story prepared.

Players help with every aspect of the game except tossing their own opposing dice for tests. With the GM, they decide power levels, character limits, scene pace, plot advancement, and character development.

That being said, this game may not be for those players who are uncomfortable with the burden of story; they will have to pull their own weight in Narrations but there are guides on how to do this. This game may not be for those players who like "shopping" for the best possible swag; gear and player options are boiled down to their base components. Please note that I am not denigrating this style of play; it's just that there are already games for these players (I am one) and they are called: Shadowrun 1, Shadowrun 2, Shadowrun 3, Shadowrun 4, and Shadowrun 5.

[Also Note] For those that dislike this game already, please add, "in general" to every thing I said and end each sentence with, "...at my table."

[freudqo]

The action is more equitable because, those without Wired, are not pushed back into the dark corners of combat.

The drama is more equitable too because combat-monsters still have a Narration to do, even in social scenes.

[Please don't take this bad, it's not intended to] What I'd like to understand is how there was an equity problem in the first place. I mean: do such situations as combat and social scenes turn into cybersam of face solo minigames at your table? Or is it just that such characters outshine the others in the specific situations where they are supposed to?

Because in all honesty, nerfing combat monsters in combat and forcing them to act in social scenes is clearly no equitable, that's pretty much unfair. I now see how you get it to be more magerun.

That being said, this game is not for those GMs that want to push their players through the novel that they have written.

As they are universally recognized as bad GMs, I'm not sure what you're looking at then. Unless you're saying classic SR is pushing towards this kind of GMing, which is false.

Players help with every aspect of the game except tossing their own opposing dice for tests. With the GM, they decide power levels, character limits, scene pace, plot advancement, and character development.

I'm really curious here. I can see how it can be fun and all, but I'm wondering if there's not a price. A lot of my pleasure as a player is precisely the thrill of the unknown: the idea that there's a plot to uncover that I don't know, the idea that you don't know if this ganger-looking ork is more than just that and will wipe you on the floor if you headbutt him… And as a GM, I really like to instillate this kind of feeling. Anyway, what I mean is can you get that if the players have such a strong influence on the game pace?

[Medicineman]

@ Gingivitis

I feel like I am about to get jumped on, but here goes:

http://shadowhelix.pegasus.de/images/thumb...200px-Ghoul.jpg
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

As they are universally recognized as bad GMs, I'm not sure what you're looking at then. Unless you're saying classic SR is pushing towards this kind of GMing, which is false.

Nobody hates Railroader more than I do, but to be honest, some of the old Modules/Adventures (Mercurial,DNA/DOA, even Queen Euphoria) are quiet.....railroady .
I'm currently GMing Queen E and I have to change quite some of the Plots to not make the Run a Railroad !
otoh I doubt I could play Queen E with Anarchy....


with a Dance from Above
Medicienman

[freudqo]

Nobody hates Railroader more than I do, but to be Honest some of the Old Modules/Adventures (Mercurial,DNA/DOA, even Queen Euphoria) are quiet.....Railroady .
I'm currently GMing Queen E and I have to change quite some of the Plots to not make the Run a Railroad !
otoh I oubt I could Play Queen E with Anarchy....

I understand what you mean, but the problem is with the module in this case.

[Medicineman]

yes and thats why old SR is sometimes pushing the GM to Railroad
so

Unless you're saying classic SR is pushing towards this kind of GMing, which is false.

Yes , there are some Runs/Adventures that have Railroad Elements in them and they are pushing the GM
( I won't be pushed especially not by an old Module/Adventure, but some GMs are ...more pushable than I am, especially younger or not so experienced GMs (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) )

with an affirmative Dance
Medicineman

[freudqo]

I'm pretty sure in this context we're talking about the game system and game universe. If you're willing to include some of the 1990's written adventures which happen to be railroady to it, I don't follow you. I was replying to a post saying: "That being said, this game is not for those GMs that want to push their players through the novel that they have written.". There's no way you'll find such GM advice in SR1-4. And clearly it's not needed.

[Gingivitis]

What I'd like to understand is how there was an equity problem in the first place. I mean: do such situations as combat and social scenes turn into cybersam of face solo minigames at your table? Or is it just that such characters outshine the others in the specific situations where they are supposed to? Because in all honesty, nerfing combat monsters in combat and forcing them to act in social scenes is clearly no equitable, that's pretty much unfair.

I didn't say it was fair; I said equitable. Is it fair that a character that spent all his/her resources to be a beast gets 4 Initiative Passes and kills all the things, while the face spent all their resources on contacts and a pretty smile gets only one Initiative Pass? Sure. Is it equitable? No.

As they are universally recognized as bad GMs, I'm not sure what you're looking at then. Unless you're saying classic SR is pushing towards this kind of GMing, which is false.

Novelist GMs (or those running aforementioned railroady modules) will be especially disappointed by Anarchy. Sure, in SR5, a player can muck a story up by not doing a thing or killing a guy too fast. But in Anarchy, they can really do a number, by introducing completely foreign objects into the mix or invalidating whole scenes with better or worse ones.

"That being said" ™, there are rules to make Anarchy a more traditional GM role, and I am sure that would work too.

...but I'm wondering if there's not a price.

Everything has a price... (Squeee! I finally got to say it!)

[freudqo]

I didn't say it was fair; I said equitable. Is it fair that a character that spent all his/her resources to be a beast gets 4 Initiative Passes and kills all the things, while the face spent all their resources on contacts and a pretty smile gets only one Initiative Pass? Sure. Is it equitable? No.

I'm not a native speaker, but I was pretty sure the terms are quite synonymous, and a quick look at the internet seems to tell me I was pretty right. How is it not equitable that spending your chargen ressources to master combat lets you outshine in combat people who spent those resources on being good at social interactions?

Anyhow, are you acknowledging that SR:Anarchy is explicitely unfair to people who wants to play combat monster, like I said it was?

Novelist GMs (or those running aforementioned railroady modules) will be especially disappointed by Anarchy. Sure, in SR5, a player can muck a story up by not doing a thing or killing a guy too fast. But in Anarchy, they can really do a number, by introducing completely foreign objects into the mix or invalidating whole scenes with better or worse ones.

"That being said" ™, there are rules to make Anarchy a more traditional GM role, and I am sure that would work too.

Sounds like SR5 is even worse than what I thought. Frankly, I don't get how they departed of the idea that GMs should let player derail and adapt (and try to forecast) when the original plot is derailed.

You know, the problem with railroady GM has always been about the GM being a moron, not the game system. A lot of RPGs (and for sure SR1-4) advise against railroading more or less explicitely.

The problem with the railroady GM is not that the story suddenly ends when you're not doing the thing or killing the guy too early. The problem is that the guy will not actually be dead, or that he will miraculously dodge the bullet, or that his son which is exactly like him will take his place and that finally killing him didn't change anything at the story. Anarchy will not prevent that. Either the railroady GM will bring back the players to his story one way or another whatever objects they bring in, either the players get angry and leave the table. Exactly as it happens in every other RPGs.

As has been pointed by hermit, the only way to be surely ridden of railroady GM is that you actually get rid of the GM.

Everything has a price... (Squeee! I finally got to say it!)

Fair enough… But then I'll take this as acknowledgement (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Sengir]

Precisely, what it does is saying a shadowrunner's reputation is linked to the vehicle he's riding.

News flash: Outward appearance does have an influence on reputation. Whether you ride a pickup with confederate flag and rifle rack, a kookmobile, a VW Bus, or a car that's average in every way, it leaves a certain impression.

So the text is not about its content, but about the layout of the page it is printed on. That doesn't make a bit of sense. Do you even realize that?

News flash 2: Layout is not just there to provide employment for artists. If you think it doesn't matter, how about Shadowrun fantasy edition, with dirty parchment background #32452 and fancy initials? Or try the new ACM edition, very print friendly in all black text on white background...

[freudqo]

News flash: Outward appearance does have an influence on reputation. Whether you ride a pickup with confederate flag and rifle rack, a kookmobile, a VW Bus, or a car that's average in every way, it leaves a certain impression.

News flash: I didn't imply the opposite at any time. Thanks for not bending my words if you don't know what to say.

[Gingivitis]

1) Even synonyms have different connotation and nuances that define them (such as childlike vs childish).

Here I am defining "fair" as "getting what you deserve." You spent all your resources on melting faces, you deserve to melt faces.
Here I am defining "equitable" as "receiving equal treatment." You are not a combat monster but you deserve to participate in this shared story as much as everyone else.

(I'm not going to debate further the meaning of words, btw. The above is what I meant by the words I used.)

2) We all know that Novelist GMs can (and should) run into problems in any setting or system of excessively wrought Plot. That doesn't mean that Novelist GMs don't exist still AND it doesn't change the fact that Anarchy will be particularly punishing to them. Players are meant to guide and reshape the plot.

3) Some are upset here because the players have too much say and will lose their sense of the unknown, and some are upset that there is still even a GM at all. You cannot easily have it both ways but you can compromise and adapt.

There are rules to set a more traditional GM structure; do that if your players don't want a shared storytelling experience but still want the rules light aspect. Also remember that EVERY player gets a share in the story (see equitable) so the discovery of the unknown comes not just from the GM but from the other players too. (Player B: "Plot twist! This ork is really a hard-ass and has friends around the corner!" *spends Plot Point*)

What I have been saying is that there are a lot of ways you can play this and they are built in (or purposely not built in) to the core Anarchy system. You can do what you want with it; it says so on the box.

[hermit]

You are not a combat monster but you deserve to participate in this shared story as much as everyone else.

Giving everyone a time to shine is a storytelling problem and should be solved with storytelling, not even more unfairly restrictive rules. That's true for any system, be it traditional top-down- or collaborative storytelling.

We all know that Novelist GMs can (and should) run into problems in any setting or system of excessively wrought Plot. That doesn't mean that Novelist GMs don't exist still AND it doesn't change the fact that Anarchy will be particularly punishing to them. Players are meant to guide and reshape the plot.

And you can stop insinuating that everyone who doesn't get all starry-eyed about Anarchy like you is one of them. Don't bother denying it, that is what your novelist GM strawman is all about. Can you please just drop this?

Also remember that EVERY player gets a share in the story (see equitable) so the discovery of the unknown comes not just from the GM but from the other players too. (Player B: "Plot twist! This ork is really a hard-ass and has friends around the corner!" *spends Plot Point*)

But that is totally different from allowing all players to shape the plot - it's not "you wake up and are now standing in Los Angeles, at midnight, at the top of a sunken skyscraper", it's "actually, the NPC is green, not blue, but otherwise yup Shiawase underwater research station", *spends one of three recoloring points per adventure*, to give a drastic and unwholesome example.

Compare this to MGME, where someone at the table sets a scene with a random table that gives out cues like "Introduce A New NPC - Overindulge - Attention", which then are used by everyone interested to suggest how the scene develops from past scenes. To use your ork eample and my example MGME roll, P1 suggests a bunch of Skraacha appear, and their attention is immediately drawn to the runners who intimidate one of theirs; P2 suggests using a pre-existing enemy who is a Skraacha lieutenant as their leader, and P3 is okay with both and doesn't add anything. The next scene is a battle against Skraacha. Plot developed on without everyone already knowing the full story, and without a GM.

Now that is equitable. That is collaborative plot shaping. Interrupts like Anarchy allows aren't really. And neither are players and the GM in Anarchy equitable. The roles are still far too different.

Some are upset here because the players have too much say and will lose their sense of the unknown, and some are upset that there is still even a GM at all. You cannot easily have it both ways but you can compromise and adapt.

Yes, Anarchy RAW is a compromise. That is why it makes neither those hesistant about the whole narrative gaming thing and those like me who want an actual narrative system instead of GM lite happy. Surprising, I know, but what is your point?

News flash 2: Layout is not just there to provide employment for artists. If you think it doesn't matter, how about Shadowrun fantasy edition, with dirty parchment background #32452 and fancy initials? Or try the new ACM edition, very print friendly in all black text on white background...

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif) Yeah. Right. Layout is the entire difference between in-character and out of character texts in shadowrun rulebooks. Riiiiiight. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

But now that you mention it, would the fantasy or blank text change whether something is in-character fluff or crunch? If so, give eamples as to how it does!

[freudqo]

1) Even synonyms have different connotation and nuances that define them (such as childlike vs childish).

Here I am defining "fair" as "getting what you deserve." You spent all your resources on melting faces, you deserve to melt faces.
Here I am defining "equitable" as "receiving equal treatment." You are not a combat monster but you deserve to participate in this shared story as much as everyone else.

You can define it how you like, they are not receiving equal treatment. You pay a lot to get a combat monster, you get as much action as the face who didn't.

I understand the philosophy you're defending here. I think it's a terrible one. It's just making characters more bland, and it's making worse the fighter character problem I've been pointing at. Forcing him into social situation and having everyone shining in combat is just making the combat character worse off. There's no need for it.

2) We all know that Novelist GMs can (and should) run into problems in any setting or system of excessively wrought Plot. That doesn't mean that Novelist GMs don't exist still AND it doesn't change the fact that Anarchy will be particularly punishing to them. Players are meant to guide and reshape the plot.

This is actually not true. As long as the GM is different from the players, he's allowed the final say on plot reshaping.

The very fact that Anarchy is advertised as rule lite means that the rules won't protect you from being railroaded.

Honestly, the argument can go both way here.

3) Some are upset here because the players have too much say and will lose their sense of the unknown, and some are upset that there is still even a GM at all. You cannot easily have it both ways but you can compromise and adapt.

I'm upset at nothing personally. I'm not asking for rule-lite, GM less games or anything. My point is just that you're advertising anarchy as preventing railroading and I really don't agree, and that the idea of having everyone play a role in combat is sensible, which clearly is not good for the combat character player. My original point is that you can't pretend everyone will have the shadowrun feel playing it since many tables like shadowrun for its intricate rules and fluff.

There are rules to set a more traditional GM structure; do that if your players don't want a shared storytelling experience but still want the rules light aspect. Also remember that EVERY player gets a share in the story (see equitable) so the discovery of the unknown comes not just from the GM but from the other players too. (Player B: "Plot twist! This ork is really a hard-ass and has friends around the corner!" *spends Plot Point*)

Ok, let's play on words. I used the phrase "thrill of the unknown". And if you reread my post, you'll understand why you don't assess the raised problem at all by saying the players can come up with some surprise element too.

Say you're reading a thrilling book. Every page you want to read the next one. When you cannot keep your eyes open any more, you hardly get to sleep because you want to know what's next. The plot is getting more intricate, it's unravelling but each time you get more mysteries, and you want to know what's going on but it's only hinted at. And when you finish the book, you realized that there's a next book that's not written yet. What you're proposing me is, "hey, read that fan fiction by someone who read the book just like you". See the problem here? That someone doesn't know the big picture, doesn't know the real mystery to uncover. Well, that's clearly not thrilling.

This is not the discovery of the unknown. This is exquisite corpse. A fun exercise but an exercise still. It's not even a real jump scare…

What I have been saying is that there are a lot of ways you can play this and they are built in (or purposely not built in) to the core Anarchy system. You can do what you want with it; it says so on the box.

Said every RPG ever.

And you can stop insinuating that everyone who doesn't get all starry-eyed about Anarchy like you is one of them. Don't bother denying it, that is what your novelist GM strawman is all about. Can you please just drop this?

Agreed. A lot.

[Sengir]

News flash: I didn't imply the opposite at any time. Thanks for not bending my words if you don't know what to say.

Except that time you considered it "pretty much bullshit", but bygones...


Sooo...if you're open to the possibility of vehicles having a bad rep, and you accept that such a bad rep can affect the standing of the owner, what exactly was your problem with having vehicles people don't want to be caught dead on?

[freudqo]

Sooo...if you're open to the possibility of vehicles having a bad rep, and you accept that such a bad rep can affect the standing of the owner, what exactly was your problem with having vehicles people don't want to be caught dead on?

The first point is of course that the idea of the average shadowrunner giving a shit about his reputation once dead is laughable.

But seriously, you know, there was a context on the quote you used, which was that shadowrun is not set in a moronic fast and furious universe. Owning a vehicle can affect your reputation among some categories of populations. Such as saying average sprawlers or jet setters will find you stupid on a dodge scoot. Since of course sprawlers and jet setters are clearly not the majority of your encounters and the people hiring you, most shadowrunners won't give a shit about using a scoot for their everyday tasks, let alone being found dead on one.

As has already been said, you can make a lot of witty sentence saying some people will find your dodge scoot is ridiculous. Like in real life, these people are moron that are bad at evaluating people's value. The people who will really matter won't care what you riding but evaluate you based on your past acts and actual abilities. This includes the Johnson, the fixers, mercenaries, cops, magic group and whoever you usually meet.

Or actually, those people didn't care in SR1-4. Suddenly, in Anarchy it seems that Johnson is Dom Torreto.

[Gingivitis]

I feel like I am about to get jumped on, but here goes:

Called it.

SOME of you forgot the add the "...at my table" to the end of everything I said.

@ Hermit: It seems like you wanted Anarchy to be a GMless system, and Anarchy did not deliver. I agree. It also never purported to be one, so I feel that is a wash. This is obviously not the game for you and it seems like you already have the game for you. I am glad you have one.

@ freudgo: I reread all of your posts and, frankly, I have literally no idea what you wanted from Anarchy or any other game (apparently not even SR5?). I hope you find a game that you like soon. MAYBE it could be Anarchy if you gave it a shot. Maybe not.

@ people who think I am "Starry-Eyed" with Anarchy, I submit to you my first post in this thread:

The Bad - Like all Shadowrun editions, it is clearly written for people who have played Shadowrun before; there is a little lore in Anarchy to ground a new player into the setting but even less to ground them into the system. The Anarchy gameplay experience is tightly tied to your table; if you have spotlight-hogging players or an adversarial GM, the shared story-telling can be a problem (but if you don't, it's great!)

The Ugly - Like all Catalyst Games publications, it sorely needs editing and proof-reading; we (players deeply invested in the concept and who posted on the official boards) got a lot of errata pushed through but there will remain more needed even after it goes to print.

If you saw how many posts I made in the errata forums, you would also know I am not starry-eyed, I am hopeful.

"That being said, " ™ I AM excited about Anarchy because I finally get to play in the setting I love with people I love because they finally were willing to give it a shot. That only happened because of Anarchy. And it turned out great...

...at my table.

[Patrick Goodman]

So if anyone's curious about why I don't come in here very often anymore...it's threads like this.

[Sendaz]

Called it.

Gee, not exactly hard when you flamebait like that.

Both sides in this have been nipping at the other so I can not say either side is blameless, but please don't try acting the martyr in this.
You wouldn't get this past FJ on the ShadowGrid without getting at least a warning, why do you feel it's acceptable here?

And for the record, before you chime in with some back hand comment about MY play preferences, I also happen to like Anarchy and have been looking forward to it for some time.
But even as an experienced SR player some parts of it do leave me scratching my head and won't deny that I am still working through some bits to try and smooth it out for better play.
Which is why I am here as well as the other forums, looking at both sides to sift through the bickering to find those gems to help me refine my game and make a better experience for my group.

@ people who think I am "Starry-Eyed" with Anarchy, I submit to you my first post in this thread:
<snip>
If you saw how many posts I made in the errata forums, you would also know I am not starry-eyed, I am hopeful.

No, you give people the impression you might be a bit starry-eyed when you open another thread where you very much give one the feeling they are only to post praise (it's in the thread title afterall) and any other opinions/issues/concerns need not apply.
If this thread is soooo horrible, why are you still here?
*looks in at the other thread*
Yeah, not a lot of chatter there, funny that.

In case you haven't noticed, DS doesn't play yes-man well.

It was built by folk who are passionate about the game and they poke and prod at something like a sore tooth, not because they are bitter but because they want to find the best out of it.

Do they kvetch a lot? Sure.

Will they nitpick at the littlest thing? Guilty.

Can they sometimes be too opinionated and a bit of a grognard set in their ways? Absolutely.

But when you need something Samsonite tested to see how things shake out, they are the 800lb gorilla the game devs should have been using to stress test the product prior to release, rather than the weak sauce quality control we have seen to date in several of CGL products.

Is CGL the only culprit in this? Of course not. Many games, both PnP and electronic have fallen into the cycle of churning out incomplete product to keep afloat with the intent to fix it later, whether in errata or in future editions.
It's a cutthroat business, not too unlike that of college professors whose manta is Publish or Perish. Except there is no equivalent of tenure for a gaming company, so there is never any resting on their laurels unfortunately, because you are only as good as the next projected item on the horizon.

And yes, we are grateful there are folk like Patrick Goodman and Co. who are sifting through the mounds of chaff to set things aright once more via the errata, thanks largely in part to community input like your own and others on the errata threads.

Will everyone ever be able to agree on things? Probably not, but we can agree to disagree without the subtle and not so subtle jabbing at each other.

We, and by we I mean all of DS, is better than this, though spirits help me it doesn't seem like it some days.

So if anyone's curious about why I don't come in here very often anymore...it's threads like this.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)
*sighs*
And there is that to top off my night.

[DeathStrobe]

I'm really curious here. I can see how it can be fun and all, but I'm wondering if there's not a price. A lot of my pleasure as a player is precisely the thrill of the unknown: the idea that there's a plot to uncover that I don't know, the idea that you don't know if this ganger-looking ork is more than just that and will wipe you on the floor if you headbutt him… And as a GM, I really like to instillate this kind of feeling. Anyway, what I mean is can you get that if the players have such a strong influence on the game pace?

Yes. You can spend a plot point to add to a scene, so you can totally do that as a GM or as even another player.

[tete]

That being said, this game is not for those GMs that want to push their players through the novel that they have written.

Not disagreeing with you but its also not for those of us who make it up as we go. I literally write a brief "A new drug hits the street called Jazz Hands and Orks are ending up in the hospital" and go... I also have a list of NPCs that grows over the campaign. Its all on the fly (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[edit] Anarchy reminds me alot of VtR especially 2.0 - some really good neat ideas are in there, certainly more like a rule set I want to see but someone wasnt really ready to push it to the limits and so its got some old baggage still hanging on, which for this old gamer I got the older editions and the house rules I already wrote... Hopefully it does well enough to get an Anarchy 2.0 someday. My only real complaint compared with SR1-5 is that arrogant language. Lets be honest every edition of shadowrun has a few warts.

[Gingivitis]

I would honestly like to make it clear that I was not insinuating that anyone here had a bad play style. The style that I was speaking against was the novelist GMs, which were "universally recognized as bad GMs", by freudgo (so no disagreement there) and Hermit prefers GM-free games (so, obviously not a railroader there). What I was doing was answering the question of:

How much more or less prep does the GM need to do and how much of that can the players help with?

and I still feel like the answer is: If you prep too much it will hurt because your players get to help a lot.

@Sendaz, I agree. I should not have played the martyr there. I probably should have stopped trying to defend my position about 72 posts ago. I started that other thread because I honestly want to talk to someone, anyone, about something positive. Because if someone asks me if it is a good game, I am going to say yes.