So long, SR4, ...and thanks for all the fish. Options

[Ellery]

It's time for me to say goodbye to SR4.

I've not exactly been one of SR4's greatest supporters, and now that I have the text, I find that most things are as bad as I feared, with a few pleasant surprises and a few unexpected shocks.

SR4 is a visually appealing product. If you just flip open to a random spot in the book, it's more stylish than any other SR product. Going by looks alone, I'd think SR4 was a winner.

SR4 is a mostly competently written product in terms of prose, editing, and setting, at least by RPG standards. There is an overreliance in all SR work on trite, contrived plots that can only be generated with a liberal helping of Deus Ex Machina (*cough* dragons *cough*), and shameless stealing of ideas that were cool in movies but end up looking like pathetic wannabes in SR. But despite that, the writing does in many places make the setting come alive, and the advance in technology has a lot of potential.

SR4 rules, however, are embarassing to read. We've covered many of the flaws on these boards already. There are numerous places where the authors seem to have no clue how their own mechanics work, where there are glaring balance issues that are easily fixed, where there are fundamental balance issues that cannot be fixed, and so on. There are even spots that essentially say, "Look, we screwed up the rules here--you figure it out!" To some extent, this is expected from the first edition of a game, which SR4 is despite the title. However, the quality of the rules is worse than I can excuse even for a first edition game. I buy games in large part for the rules. I want the rules to help me out as a GM and as a player--they help decide what can happen, how it can happen, keep things fair, and so on. I want them to benefit me and generally get out of the way. SR4 rules do the opposite for me--at every turn I trip over them, they generate absurdity, are horribly abusable, and aren't even all that fast to resolve (though they are slightly faster than SR3 in my hands). No thanks! I will ignore the rules if they get in the way of the story, as SR4 asks, but good rules should be well-matched to the stories often told in the setting, and good rules therefore mostly won't get in the way. SR3 rules could have used a lot of improvement; throwing away three editions' worth of refinement and starting anew with all new problems is distressing. If the authors lacked the rudimentary mathematical awareness or the time to get the rules right, why didn't they get more high-quality playtesters and listen to what they said?

I think the conception of SR4 is my least favorite aspect. Unlike the others, this is subjective. SR4 is a dumbed-down game. At almost every turn, it sacrifices richness for simplicity, player control for hard limits and roll-and-pray, character talent and skill for game-breaking munchkins and the utter superiority of spirits and dragons over humanity. It is not even that simple, given the piles of modifiers to apply. It is not a game where I feel empowered as a player (no dice pools) or as a character (hard caps on skills). It is not a game in which I can envision placing a character who will have a long future of self-advancement (hard caps on skills, fixed TN system inherently only works in a narrow range even if I remove the caps). It is a game of mediocrity. It seems immature. I would possibly have enjoyed it when I was twelve and outgrown it by sixteen.

Most people don't think of role playing games as teaching tools, but I think that aspect is valuable as well. I would argue that previous editions of Shadowrun were among the very best RPGs in terms of the benefits they bestowed upon players. Because of the tactical considerations with target numbers and pools, previous editions encouraged players to develop a sense of probability, a sense of exponential scaling, and the ability to judge risk and plan accordingly. Because of the futuristic/fantasy Earth setting, it rewarded players and GMs who did research on real-life locations and events with a richer roleplaying experience. The latter is still mostly true (although every time the setting incorporates a nonsensical or ill-researched aspect, I cringe), but the former is mostly not. I would no longer recommend SR4 for my friends' children. I wouldn't advise against it, but the teaching aspect is diminished, and the approach seems to be to simplify to the point where the game teaches nothing. This may sell, but I would do the opposite and include little tutorials within the game explaining how to play the game well, and these tutorials would develop thinking skills as a secondary benefit.

SR4 may end up being profitable. A game that I might enjoy might not sell as well.

But I do not think it will be profitable because of me. I've spent about $1500 on SR products over the last 13 years, and another $300 or so on Earthdawn mostly because I liked SR (and it too was a pretty cool game). Once I have the last of the SR3 books, I plan on spending about $0 on SR4 products, and I have no interest in looking at any other FanPro product. If FanPro comes out with compelling SR4 stories and setting expansions, especially with the power players working from the shadows and manipulating events in realistic ways through skill and knowledge rather than unassailable power, maybe I'll buy some non-rules supplements. Maybe not.

Perhaps SR4 will do well; perhaps not. I do know that it will do what it does without me.

Finally, since I have only been on DS to discuss SR4, and I have tired of SR4, I won't be around after any discussion on this thread has died off. Thanks to those of you who fostered interesting discussions.

(Two asides for unfinished business.)

[ Spoiler ]

Synner--you claimed that I couldn't know that SR4 promoted magic use among magicians. Here's the counterexample using the real rules. In SR4, you can get 6 stat points of bioware, worth 60 bp, for 1 magic (10bp or 25bp at max) and 50k nuyen (10bp). Thus, you come out ahead by at least 25bp and often 40bp, as long as you're okay not having force 6/force 12 spells. You lose one die on your success test, but gain two on your drain resists. Initiation/magic raising costs don't even the odds until you reach grade 12 or so, if we believe 1bp = 2 karma

[ Spoiler ]

Rolemodel--we never did go through the calculations to back up or disprove those claims you were so eloquently but nonquantitatively espousing. I consider what I've already posted to be indications of a disproof, but I'm happy to do the calculations of a full agreed upon scenario, as we discussed, if you let me know while I'm still paying attention.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

[Oracle]

Well, I'm pretty sure, that he is not from my county, so I don't feel insulted.^^

[Synner]

Honestly, sorry to see you go.

[ Spoiler ]

So as not to spoil the goodbye thread.
QUOTE="You claimed that I couldn't know that SR4 promoted cyber use among magicians."
I think that's what you meant. Unfortunately that's not all you said and not all I was referring to.

"The ability to cast force 6 spells was important in SR3, but won't be with the new mechanic, so the penalty for starting mages to take cyberware will go down.  If you combine that with presumably cheaper costs to get partial magical ability, I'd expect to see many more mages with a bit of cyber, or street sams with a bit of magic."
This is what you said. I said you didn't have enough information to make that judgement call as anything but speculation. Period.

Given what was known at that point there was no basis for any speculation about how bioware differed between editions, I stand by what I said.

Your comment was regarding cyberware and my subsequent replies were in that context. I still stand by what I said, I do not see the SR4 system promoting "cyber use by magicians" or "sams with a little bit of magic" (given the in-built limitations and ramifications of low-Magic ratings). Nor do I see them becoming more common (mages with bioware on the other hand...).

[Birdy]

[Ellery]

I've removed the sentences because the "this country" phrase didn't really make sense given the audience, and it gets rather awkward when properly qualified and justified with appeal to the primary market and so on.

That said, I absolutely did not say that the only reason to disagree with me was because one didn't enjoy thinking. In fact, I said the opposite--it was subjective, based upon what you like in your games. However, several SR freelancers have said here that SR needs to appeal to younger players, players have complained that they don't know how to use combat pool, and so on. If you can make a case that the changes to SR4 were not made to reduce the thinking burden, please make it instead of vacuously claiming an insult.

Otherwise, if you don't want to think about that aspect of the game, why view it as an insult? If you do, why take it as an insult if I point out that some people don't?

Added in edit--Synner, I should have said cyberware/bioware originally if I didn't before. Both used to affect magic. I stand by the claim that magic 6 isn't particularly better than magic 5, and while it is theoretically possible to make cyberware and bioware mostly useless, having it in the game at all is strongly indicative of exactly the kind of situation I pointed out above. It turns out that it's much more advantageous than I had thought; you can take just about any magical character and make them better by adding a point of bioware. If the whole disagreement was simply because I did not say "cyberware and bioware" instead of "cyber", I'm sorry I didn't clear it up earlier.

[blakkie]

[NightmareX]

Ellery, I'm always sorry to see one of us old dogs disappear (hell, I'm still hoping Blackjack will come back someday), but I understand your point entirely.

Myself, I'm still holding off judgement on SR4 until I've finished reading and comparing it to SR3, but I may end up doing the same as you if SR4 proves unsalvagable. Ironic, considering it's debute is what brought me back to Dumpshock after a two year hiatus.

Happy trails to you.

[Grinder]

[blakkie]

[Ellery]

blakkie--
In games where geases were ignored or the conditions were rarely unfulfilled, I agree. Power for free is always better than power with a minimal drawback.

The core book doesn't have geas so that's not an entirely equal comparison; you could make your spells all require a fetish but you'd be helpless if you lost the fetish(es).

The example geasa in MitS are all things that you want to be doing less than half the time as a shadowrunner. If they break that geas, they get +1TN in addition to not having the magic point. In games where the rules were followed as given, geasa were a major restriction (except possibly the talisman geas).

People who gain enough karma to initiate once in SR3 have almost no reason to not take a point of cyber/bioware. There I agree that the pressure is the other way. However, for whatever reason, post-chargen implantation of 'ware seems to be rare in practice in many games (in mine, and I've seen a number of others observe the same thing). Thus, the initial TN6 pressure is the major factor in SR3 in keeping cyber/bio out of mages.

Also, I'm not sure why you think you'll see me in the main forum. I've not posted there yet, and I see no compelling reason to do so in the future.


Nightmare--
I'm not an old dog of DS. It was good for discussing SR4, so I showed up for that (note the date I joined). I was aware of DS, of course, long before that, but didn't see a reason to post. I am an old dog of SR, but I'm not really lost from SR, just from the SR revenue stream.

Anyway, good luck with SR4. If you do decide it's worth your effort, there are certainly a lot of ideas for good improvements floating around on the boards.

[blakkie]

[NightmareX]

[Ellery]

blakkie--
I'm arguing the same thing as before. Please explain why you think otherwise.

[blakkie]

[Ellery]

Mm hm. I already said I was leaving after any discussion died off.

I suppose you could try to kill it, if you wanted me to leave sooner.

[blakkie]

[Ellery]

I haven't made all of these points before. Some I have made, at which point people said I didn't have SR4 so I couldn't know. Well, now I do have it, and can explain with full knowledge why I have various opinions. (For the most part, the previous criticisms about lack of knowledge were invalid, unfortunately.)

I see you're trying for the kill! Maybe I'll wait a few hours and see if you've succeeded. Hint: if you keep posting to the thread, it's not dead yet. Undead? Perhaps.

[blakkie]

[Fox1]

[Ellery]

blakkie--
Well, the point about RPGs being beneficial isn't one I've made at any length before here. I happen to think it pretty important, although obviously there's much more to education than playing RPGs.

Also, the post indirectly highlights that long-time fans are a lot more valuable than first-time sales of a shiny new product. Once the buzz has faded, it is long-time fans who put out the money to sustain the product.

And I haven't explained this clearly what I liked about SR before and like in RPGs in general. My explanation still isn't that clear, but if someone knows of other games with those characteristics (rules strongly complement setting, promote player control and tactics, and are rich enough to help develop thinking skills), I'd like to hear about them.

Fox--
Major changes to games are divisive. Anything that promotes strong divisions also tends to create feelings of opposing groups, and those groups tend to attack each other. I'm not surprised. It's human nature. Also, the stuff with blakkie is the result of previous problems I've had with him--that too is human nature, but isn't that relevant to attacks on me for making negative comments while leaving.

[blakkie]

[Fox1]

[mmu1]

[NightmareX]