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

[Fox1]

[Ellery]

[Synner]

For the record Ellery, it's been a pleasure debating stuff with you in the past. Even though I dare say we won't agree on many fundamentals, you've made your points more clearly and have proved level-headed than the vast majority of the posters on both sides of the SR3/SR4 debate. I honestly think if more people had taken your route discussions here would have proven more fruitful and less bitter.

On my part I understand your disappointment with SR4 and am sorry to see you leave. I do hope, if nothing else, you will find future material to your taste though.

[Ellery]

Thanks Synner.

[blakkie]

[Ellery]

I tossed in the spoilers because I had agreed to follow up in previous threads (hence "unfinished business"). If I am leaving, I can't follow up. I'm just fulfilling my committments, or at least making an offer to do so.

I'm not sure what blakkie's talking about in the other paragraphs, and I've had bad luck asking for clarifications, so I'll just shrug noncommittally.

[blakkie]

*cough*

[Ellery]

Can't say I see how that's relevant. *shrugs noncommittally*

[Fox1]

[ShadowPavement]

Maine is all in the Eastern time zone by the way.



For me the one thing I'm worried about is what seems to be a greater emphasis on the "cyber" and less emphasis on the "punk" part of SR4.

I for one like the new mechanics. I can actually use riggers and deckers now. Though I also like the old mechanics as well. Each has it's benifits and hinderances. SR2 and 3 was great when I was in college and had players that liked to figure out how to use TN and Pools to best advantage. I'm still cursing my player who figured out that he could delay his action untill after the BBEG had thier action, then use all his combat pool to counter and then get his first action in the next initiative pass and usee all his combat pool again against her and maul her in two actions. Nowadays SR4 would be a better fit for my group since I'm gaming with some younger players who arn't nearly as into manipulating the system to thier advantage.

It also depends on what part of the SR timeline you want to play in. If I plan on running with new meta-plots in the game then SR4 is the way to go. Though I do have a thing for bug city and anything to do with Dunklzhan still alive, so I'd use SR3 for any of those games.

No one says that anyone HAS to change to SR4. If you don't like it fine, if you like it fine. Each has thier own use.

Just some thoughts.

[booklord]

I'm still waiting for the book. But... from what I've seen it strikes me as flawed but fixable. ( which is basically the same diagnosis I gave SR3 ) I'm holding out hope still. Mainly because I believe some strategically placed house rules can fix this puppy.

[Dashifen]

We haven't clashed on the boards, because I generally refuse to argue on the Internet (you've all probably seen the (rather insulting) graphic) but I'm sorry to see you go. I for one greatly enjoy SR4 and the glaring rule problems that so many evangelize haven't been a problem for me over the last month as I played the game so I hope that your decisions here are based not on theoretical appliction of the rules but practical.

[Arethusa]

[Supercilious]

SOrry to see you go, Ellery, I agree with you on most of your points.

[Crusher Bob]

Well, I fell in love with Puppetland when I first read it, many moons ago. I even have the dead tree version.

For me, cyberpunk has always been about two competing themes:
one that there are no 'superheros' and no 'supervillians', there is nothing special about the high and mighty in the world, they can be outgunned, outmanuvered, and so on. Some punk from the street can, with a combination of luck and skill, take them out. See how often this happens in the 'classic' cyberpunk literature. So, in short everyone is brought down to the level of the guy on the street.

Theme two, is how easy it is to become a 'superhero' you go into the cyber clinic as joe average, but come out as superman.

The combination of having everyone in the world brought down at the same time they are exalted makes for an interesting setting.

Early SR was like this on steroids. You had regular 'fanatsy' stuff, but it was 'brought down' as well. Elves were no longer immortal bow wielding pixies who lived happily in the woods, but instead were just poor schlubs trying to get ahead in a dog-eat-dog world. Dragons were playing the same song of control, greed, and power that you can hear in every corporate boardroom.

On the other hand, the 'exaltation' available was even greater, you could be an elf, mage, with cybernetic parts! You could use your magic power to leap from rooftop to rooftop, to avoid the morning traffic. You could use your cybernetic vision enhancements to cast a spell or some poor chump who though he was safely hidden in the fog.

SR started to lose me when they made the movers and shakers in the world, not 'ordinary' people (even if they happened to be dragons, or whatever, the whole points was that dragons were ordinary).) Once the story of the game became about unbeatable immortal elves, and dragons that were unstoppable in whatever they wanted to do (oh, and maybe how the flea-like player characters could play some small and insignificant part in their plans...)

By doing this, SR lost both the feeling of exaltation (the elves and dragons were always better than you, no matter what) and the feeling that everyone else was in the same gutter you were, but maybe they were head up in stead of head down.

So far, I'm not getting a good feeling from SR4, in that I feel neither exalted nor brought low by the setting or the rules for playing in that setting.

[mfb]

i'm pretty much with ell on this one, and for largely the same reasons. SR4 is a much, much more limited game than SR3, in lots and lots of ways--most of them ways that matter to me, as a gamer. i can see what was attempted with the mechanics, and while i'm on the fence as to the worthiness of the design goals, i definitely think that the game fails everywhere except the design goals (and i'm not even sure they hit those 100%).

i was going to cite examples, but hell. we've got almost a years' worth of threads that adequately explain the specifics of what i think is wrong with the system. the long and short of it is that it's just not a fun game, to me. i'm going to continue playing SR3 or a modified version of it. depending on whether or not i like where SR4's storylines go, i might pick up the occasional supplement. but i'm not going to be playing SR4.

blakkie, you're a useless twit. stop typing.

[Bigity]

If you want a game with streamlined rules that very strongly 'enforce' the setting, check out Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (2nd edition, I don't have much experience with 1st). Those combat rules are brutal, just like they are supposed to be. Using magic is dangerous, so one must carefully weigh the benefits of a spell before casting it.

The setting is oppresive, dangerous, and very bleak. I love it.

[mintcar]

Blakkie is really being an asshole.

Ellery, you should understand that people who enjoy SR 4 don´t like to think as much as you about rules, but may be more or less inclined to think about other things. I won´t deny that the little implications of disdain does not bother me, but I can understand how they can be hard to resist. Your preferences are very clear, and mine (and others like me) should not be that hard to understand. There´s no need to even imply that one preference is more virtuous than the other. (And please do not deny that you made such an implication, you were even making up an example to prove it.)

[mfb]

whether or not a given player, or even most players, put much thought into the rules doesn't enter into it. game mechanics impact setting, whether you're consciously aware of it or not. therefore, the game design should keep the setting in mind. if the players are as aware of the rules as ellery is, they'll appreciate rules that back up the setting for specific reasons. if not, they'll appreciate rules that back up the setting for reasons they can't quite put their fingers on.

[Fox1]

[Solstice]

[Crusher Bob]

Heh, let me see if I can come up with a good metaphor...

Imagine that you have a pretty good dinner plate. Then one day, you find that your cat has taken a giant crap on the dinner plate. If you don't find cat crap too disgusting, imagine that it has worms or something in it...

Now, will you eat off the plate in the future? It's glazed ceramic, so it will sterelize quite easily... But will you ever feel as good, eating out of the plate that your cat once took a crap in?

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Do you cut off your fingers when they become dirty?

[Fox1]

[Fox1]