Sooo I read Anarchy... Options

[freudqo]

@ 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.

Basically a good old SR3 is fine for me, but nice try on shifting the point. You know, the goal is to discuss anarchy. You're praising it for being what it's not, and we just disagree.

Anarchy is not a system that will prevent railroading, it's not a system which will work exactly like your table want, and apparently it quite doesn't give you the thrill of the unknown.

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.

Well actually this discussion expanded a bit. Turns out no, you cannot really get the thrill of the unknown, suspense or surprise. The thrill comes from the fact that something exist and you have to discover what it is. Doesn't work if the player next to you just make up something from the story he knows exactly like you.

[Blade]

Narrative games where players can impact the story (or even that plays without a GM) don't have to be better or worse than classic games with an almighty GM.
It's a different approach, that gives a different flavor and a different experience.

Some people prefer one, other prefer the other, there's no use in trying to argue the superiority of one over the other.

[Sendaz]

@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.

I should not have been snippy in my tone either, there are better ways to address everyone and I do apologize.

And I have been looking at your Anarchy resources and finding some interesting bits there, so thank you for putting that up for us and others to tap.

[Sengir]

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.

Because of course, only hardcore tuners have ever made jokes about crappy Ladas and their supposed clientele...in fact, hardcore tuners in their plastic-ardoned Hondas are another stock character.

[freudqo]

Because of course, only hardcore tuners have ever made jokes about crappy Ladas and their supposed clientele...in fact, hardcore tuners in their plastic-ardoned Hondas are another stock character.

Nope. But only them will think the guy getting out of the lada doesn't know his shit because he's getting out of the Lada. You seem to mistake reputation with style.

But actually, you're shifting the point by forgetting the book is making a general statements that encompass all possible runners. Book says every shadowrunner will really care about getting a showy vehicle. That's never been true of shadowrun before, that's a crappy concept, and that's ridiculously disempowering for a game where chargen usually promised you a lot more versatility than that.

[hermit]

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

Been running my games like that for a decade now, too. And not because of some lofty player-centered fun concept (though that, of course, sounds nice). It's self-preservation. See, if you spend a day's work preparing a module-style adventure, statting all NPCs, making up locations and everything, and an intricate plot, you'll have wated an entire day's work five minutes into the average game, because a player had an idea that you didn't see coming. It's okay for players to have that. Railroading them would suck for everybody. So I wing it and bring only a vague concept, a few core NPC, and a few scenarios I will probably use to the game, fill in the rest as it comes, reacting and acting on player cues.

What I hoped Anarchy would be is something akin to MGME. Now, that may have been me misunderstanding the premise. I honestly could care less about simplified rules - that becomes dumbed down to my taste really fast and I never was intimidated by middle school maths. I do care - a lot - about disappearing the position of the GM. For a very simple reason - usually, I am the GM, and I don't really want to. Nobody else does. GMing always is the more tedious and less rewarding part of the game (not unrewarding, but less rewarding). You get no thrill of discovery, you have to keep track of a lot of stull, have to smooth the plot's wrinkles in as underhanded a way that nobody notes, on the spot, and usually, you're a kindergartener, too.

Now, on its own, Anarchy probably works well enough. It's clunkier than FATE, and I still don't get why characters need tags when they have cues, and I dislike how this, again, favors the magical over the mundane, but it's probably playable. It's just not for me. As freudqo wrote, it does remind me of nWoD: A lot of good intentions and ideas, but lacks the boldness and ambition to live up to them. A game like an EU Guideline. Nowhere near as bad as the press it gets, but it could have been far better had it not been watered down by a lack of courage.

Oh yeah, and the tone it is (in parts) written in.

But actually, you're shifting the point by forgetting the book is making a general statements that encompass all possible runners. Book says every shadowrunner will really care about getting a showy vehicle. That's never been true of shadowrun before, that's a crappy concept, and that's ridiculously disempowering for a game where chargen usually promised you a lot more versatility than that.

It's the layout, obviously.

[freudqo]

For a very simple reason - usually, I am the GM, and I don't really want to. Nobody else does. GMing always is the more tedious and less rewarding part of the game (not unrewarding, but less rewarding).

Hehe. I've felt like this very often after a few sessions of GMing and finishing a campaign.

And though, each time I get to play a PC, I want to GM again. Some kind of circle I guess.

It's the layout, obviously.

More seriously, this weird blurring of in and out of character writing style (someone said opinionated I think…) reminds me of what Gingivitis said at the beginning about the problem with this game being for people who already know the SR universe. Someone used to shadowtalk might feel like he's reading some of it and add the mental "hey" Glyph was talking about. But a beginner will perceive it as a universe where you actually shouldn't buy a Dodge Scoot.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

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

Which I find a bit sad (for the community), because you have a lot to offer, Patrick.

[hermit]

And though, each time I get to play a PC, I want to GM again. Some kind of circle I guess.

Heh. It's more subtle with me. I just tend to take control of scenes if I don't consciously keep myself back (and prod my players to contribute too, because they instantly snap back into consumer player mode too). Will need some work, I guess. But at least it removes the need for GM KArma and GM payment so the GMs characters aren't totally neglected and can't play well with the regulars even if the GM can catch a break.

[DrZaius]

So at the risk of getting involved, I'll add a few more comments as to what I think are the merits of SRA.

Namely, after playing RPGs for.. longer than I'd care to do the math on right now, I think that a system LIKE SRA is what I have always wanted for the Shadowrun Universe.

Thinking about a game like D&D 4th, which is essentially a collaborative wargame (NOT a true RPG system), there's very clearly defined roles and rulesets to follow. This is neither here nor there, but it does lead to players getting pigeonholed / stuck in ruts in what they do (e.g. "I guess I use my at-will power to attack the hobgoblin").

SR5 is similar, except the rules are way too complicated to parse easily. If you actually followed all of the rules laid out (which has never happened in any Shadowrun game I've ever played, by the way), you'd be bogged down in a morass of a ridiculously complex system. That, combined with the priority system saying THIS character can do A, B, but not C or D, and THAT character can do C and D, but not A or B, means that players have a lot of "phone time" while the specialists talk to the GM during their time to shine.

That's boring and lame, and not at all how actual humans interact. If I could wave a wand (or power focus?) and make running the matrix at the speed of thought the matrix happens at, perhaps I'd feel differently. However, the subsystems of SR5 means that no matter who the spotlight is focused on, there are others at the table it ISN'T.

Enter SRA. It's not perfect; it's not necessarily what I would have done, there are editing errors, etc. etc. etc. So what. I want a narrative based game that all players can contribute to.

Some other people in the thread are complaining this means players who are heavily invested in combat aren't stars compared to their "face" peers. I suppose that's accurate. I don't really care. I don't like that players feel like they need to sit on their hands during one of the phases of the run because their numbers aren't optimized for that section. I WANT the Troll to weigh in on the negotiation, and say they need extra 'yen for more grenades. I think the face should be able to perform a trickshot and save the gunbunny from the guard that he didn't see. I want the hacker to describe something cool with technology and for it to just HAPPEN, because trying to figure out how it happens is needlessly complex and not necessary. Same for the mage - it's Magic for frak's sake; it should be whatever a player wants it to be.

SRA is the system I wish I had been playing these past 20 years; and building stories with my fellow players instead of getting stuck trying to optimize characters, or have arguments about the matrix or drones or magic or a million different things.

So in summation; I like this system. I think it's a great way to open the world of Shadowrun to more players who otherwise wouldn't see it (and be real; the complexity of Shadowrun has always caused it to be limited in size compared to it's competitors). If there are issues with specifics of the system, I encourage others to create homebrewed versions and adjust it to their particular table.

My advice to everyone is to stop attacking strawmen, or argument semantics (literal semantics, as in the meaning of words), and embrace this for what it was intended as; an open narrative based system meant to eliminate the chaff and help create cool stories.

-DrZ

[DeathStrobe]

Well actually this discussion expanded a bit. Turns out no, you cannot really get the thrill of the unknown, suspense or surprise. The thrill comes from the fact that something exist and you have to discover what it is. Doesn't work if the player next to you just make up something from the story he knows exactly like you.

What's the difference? At what point do you honestly feel like someone adding a new wrinkle to the plot, and the GM making it up before the section matters? Either way it gets revealed at the same point in the narrative, assuming it has some degree of logically consistency.

Honestly, I think you're just looking for a reason to not like giving players control of the narrative and being able to shape it or something.

[hermit]

I WANT the Troll to weigh in on the negotiation, and say they need extra 'yen for more grenades.

The extra KARMA.

I think the face should be able to perform a trickshot and save the gunbunny from the guard that he didn't see.

I think so too! But Anarchy makes this unnecessarily complex to impossible. Riggers seem to have it worst, having to decide between all the stuff they need for their core ability and one or two (tops) side amps to not sit on their hands in non-rigging situations.

an open narrative based system meant to eliminate the chaff and help create cool stories.

It kinda looks like it, but scratch the surface and it's hardly any different from traditional GM-player relations, unfortunatly. And this is difficult to rule away with a quick house rule without changing core mechanisms entirely. Better use MGME and SR4A or SR5, or a FATE or PbtA hack if you're looking for simplified rules.

[DrZaius]

The extra KARMA.

I consider this a feature, not a bug. Every player comes to the table with some other asinine impression of what their character's time is worth; countless hours have been spent in negotiation without getting to the meat of the run. Having the Johnson slip you a piece of paper (or in this case, an encrypted text) can preserve the concept of the negotiation without getting bogged down in minutiae.

I think so too! But Anarchy makes this unnecessarily complex to impossible. Riggers seem to have it worst, having to decide between all the stuff they need for their core ability and one or two (tops) side amps to not sit on their hands in non-rigging situations.

I guess where I come off on this is that the abstract nature of the rules, and the fact that archetypes and races have been untied even more, that I think a player can attempt most of these things without having to worry if their numbers are perfect for that situation. Riggers DO seem to need the most love (as always (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) ) but I don't think it's necessarily impossible. One quick note: I haven't gotten a chance to actually play anarchy yet; so I don't want to claim any authority here. ON THE SURFACE it looks like it would work.

It kinda looks like it, but scratch the surface and it's hardly any different from traditional GM-player relations, unfortunatly. And this is difficult to rule away with a quick house rule without changing core mechanisms entirely. Better use MGME and SR4A or SR5, or a FATE or PbtA hack if you're looking for simplified rules.

It could have gone farther, sure. However, I think it definitely leans towards the player agency side, especially compared to SR5 and more traditional systems. Of course, other games do the narrative method better, I won't argue that, but SR is in it's history a GM run game; I think going that extra step may be a bridge too far. I'd like to give it a few months and see if people think the way it's setup is cumbersome, or if the 'traditional' roles seem to make sense.

-DrZ

[Gingivitis]

+1

@DrZ - I have two groups now running SRA and both have riggers (one dwarf, one troll). They both work just fine. The extra attacks and movement that drones offer make them formidable in combat and useful in narrative/non-combat. Shadow Amps and Karma are the great equalizers in Anarchy. Where they need work is in vehicle rules, specifically: durability (does it act as a Condition Monitor or not?), and how the Matrix interacts with vehicles (can drones take Matrix damage or not?). It would be nice if it was clearer, but you can play it either way (I have).

[Sengir]

Book says every shadowrunner will really care about getting a showy vehicle.

It says that "no runner wants to be caught dead" on this vehicle, which is
1.) Clearly a hyperbolic, subjective statement and not a statistic.
2.) Not an indication that the extreme opposite has to be true. "Nobody wants to wear rags like these" does not equal "everybody wants a $10000 suit". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

It's the layout, obviously.

Yeah, the layout doesn't include an all-caps "hey, in case you wonder why we have that background and everything" which some people seem to need, so I guess you can blame it on the layout.

Seriously, there are points which are simply not worth discussing.

[freudqo]

What's the difference? At what point do you honestly feel like someone adding a new wrinkle to the plot, and the GM making it up before the section matters? Either way it gets revealed at the same point in the narrative, assuming it has some degree of logically consistency.

Honestly, I think you're just looking for a reason to not like giving players control of the narrative and being able to shape it or something.

To answer your second question, at the point I explained several times in this topic: the GM has the big picture, the players don't. So I have no way of knowing if the GM is making stuff up or if the last encounter is linked to the general plot. Hence the thrill.

That's the first thing that makes your comment on my behaviour irrelevant. The second thing is that you mistake narrative for plot here. The players are shaping the narrative in every RPG where you're not railroaded. The very idea of every RPG is that your actions as a PC affect the world. Having the players not being able to change the universe or general plot past their characters' actions is entirely different than saying you don't want players to control the narrative.

It says that "no runner wants to be caught dead" on this vehicle, which is
1.) Clearly a hyperbolic, subjective statement and not a statistic.
2.) Not an indication that the extreme opposite has to be true. "Nobody wants to wear rags like these" does not equal "everybody wants a $10000 suit". wink.gif

1) That's kind of our point since the beginning. Clearly a subjective statements has nothing to do there. If it was a hyperbolic statement based on an objective stuff, no one would care.
2) Your comparison is not valid. The dodge scoot is not a rag. It's casual clothes. Sure wearing casual working suits or clothes will get you jeers from sprawlers. Then reread what you wrote using "casual clothes" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) .

[freudqo]

Some other people in the thread are complaining this means players who are heavily invested in combat aren't stars compared to their "face" peers. I suppose that's accurate. I don't really care. I don't like that players feel like they need to sit on their hands during one of the phases of the run because their numbers aren't optimized for that section. I WANT the Troll to weigh in on the negotiation, and say they need extra 'yen for more grenades. I think the face should be able to perform a trickshot and save the gunbunny from the guard that he didn't see.

How is that incompatible with the idea that the face is still the star of negociation and the gunbunny the star of the fight? How is that even impossible in SR1-5? Do your PCs really forbid the troll to talk during negociation phases? Did you read the post I was answering (since I'm "other people")? The idea was that it was unfair that the sam had more actions during fight and he HAD to weigh in during social interaction.

[hermit]

It could have gone farther, sure. However, I think it definitely leans towards the player agency side, especially compared to SR5 and more traditional systems.

It's really easy to give player more agency than SR5 does. SR1-4 did that already. I mean, I see your point, but it still is, from my experience and my expectations, underwhelming enough that I won't bother with it, especially since it enforces classes lite by favor of its (for a shadowrun game) extremely restrictive chargen rules and further entrenches the magerun problem. I am, however, not sure the authors even consider magerun to be a problem.

[Sengir]

1) That's kind of our point since the beginning.

Yes, but apart from the claim that in-universe descriptions are not supposed to be there, you (and hermit) also claimed that the statement was somehow douchy and/or somehow offensive, and I'm still not seeing it.

The dodge scoot is not a rag. It's casual clothes.

The "voice" of the description clearly considers the Scoot to be an inferior piece of drek. Obviously, going from a different premise leads to a different conclusion.

[DrZaius]

It's clear this (and previous books) were written with a "voice". Some people's subjective opinions didn't care for it. I'm not positive it's worth rehashing much beyond that. You either like it, feel neutral about it, or dislike it. The "voice" continued in anarchy, which again, some people didn't like. I think that's a valid criticism, even if I don't mind the voice.

I'm on a phone so I'll make it brief, but I think certain people in the thread like anarchy, some dislike it for not going far enough, others have a beef with certain implementations. I'm curious about the issues people see in the third group, because I am having trouble seeing your POV.

-DrZ

[hermit]

Yes, but apart from the claim that in-universe descriptions are not supposed to be there, you (and hermit) also claimed that the statement was somehow douchy and/or somehow offensive, and I'm still not seeing it.

I cited two examples of the book's voice's douchiness, and this was none of them. I never claimed this specific quote to be offensive, but inappropriately in-character (written in a voice, if you will) in rules text, no matter the text's layout. Clearly, we don't agree on whether the text or the layout takes precedence in the nature of the text, though.

[freudqo]

Yes, but apart from the claim that in-universe descriptions are not supposed to be there, you (and hermit) also claimed that the statement was somehow douchy and/or somehow offensive, and I'm still not seeing it.

The "voice" of the description clearly considers the Scoot to be an inferior piece of drek. Obviously, going from a different premise leads to a different conclusion.

And I said since the beginning that if the statement was clearly in character, I wouldn't care. There are plenty of shadowtalks using this douchy tone. Honestly, if you don't see how someone despising people for riding a convenient scoot is a douchy attitude, I can't do anything for you. And since the problem has always been about it being supposed to be out of character, I'd say you're still shifting the point.

It's clear this (and previous books) were written with a "voice". Some people's subjective opinions didn't care for it. I'm not positive it's worth rehashing much beyond that. You either like it, feel neutral about it, or dislike it. The "voice" continued in anarchy, which again, some people didn't like. I think that's a valid criticism, even if I don't mind the voice.

The reproach is precisely that this voice changed of tone. It didn't "continue". It changed of tone.

The narrator used to sound like a veteran runner, not a poser. That's to say that instead of imposing his prejudice on you and being despising (That's how strong you are, duh), he would try to tell you to give up on your prejudice before entering the shadows. Things are not what they seem to be, they're unpredictable, be careful cause the geek with his glasses could bring the hell of four elementals on you, the little cute elf will cut you with a monofilament before you blink while the ugly troll might actually kindly introduce you to the people in the pub. He was just an old guy who sounded like he had seen too much to pretend he knew much.

[Sengir]

a convenient scoot

Again, your argument is built from the implicit premise that the Scoot is actually a decent ride, and "the voice" only dismisses it because it doesn't meet his douchy standards.

[freudqo]

Again, your argument is built from the implicit premise that the Scoot is actually a decent ride, and "the voice" only dismisses it because it doesn't meet his douchy standards.

SR1: "An electric intra-city scooter"
Rigger Black Book: "A perfect recreational ride, and a great emergency vehicle to carry in your trunk*. The Dodge Scoot is designed to operate under pedal or electric power, and GridLink access is built in. Available in a wide range of designer colors and custom paint jobs, and corporate logos are a specialty. The Scoot is just the thing for short-distance suburban or recreational travel, or corporate-compound hops." Shadowtalk comment: "For munchkins only".
SR2: "An electric intra-city scooter"
Rigger 2: "This electric-powered scooter is perfect for whizzing down city streets"
SR3: "This electric-powered scooter is perfect for whizzing down city streets"
Rigger 3: "The Scoot is an electrically powered scooter. Designed for urban commuting, the Scoot is an inexpensive option to public transportation that is affordable and ecologically friendly. Among young upwardly mobile urban professionals, it is the best selling bike on the market."
SR4: "This electric-powered scooter is perfect for whizzing down city streets. Compact and affordable, the Scoot is available in a wide variety of colors, and the plastic chassis can be shop-modified to customer specs."

I seem to remember SR4 didn't have a rigger 4, and I quite don't remember nor care what SR5 is saying. My implicit premise that the Scoot is a decent and convenient ride has thus actually been a fact in 4 editions of shadowrun. It merely gets an ironic shadowtalk comment in RBB that's certainly not equivalent to the description in SRA.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I have had characters actually use the Scoot. Not only is is Cheap, it is ubiquitous in the city. You blend with the masses and do not stand out. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Of course, if you are using it to run away from Corporate Security, you may have issues. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)