I still keep on using my 3rd edition stuff for various reasons.
1: too soon,
2: spent too much money on 3rd edition stuff
3: I still have to familirize with much of 3rd ed. mechanincs, esp. matrix and rigger 3.

Anyway I'm intrigued by this new edition. The only thing I can say so far is that I do not like the new graphics, but I know this is not the real thing to judge.
SO:
I would like to ask anybody who played both 4th and and 3rd edition:


a) what are the main differences? Please explain this shoprtly in a few-points-list.


b) Do you thing 4th ed. is really an improvement?
( I've heard contrastant opinions so far).
Please explain in a summary why.


c) What do you prefer and suggest using?

This whole topic has already been exhaustingly discussed in various threads throughout the board.

Ignore 3e Rigging and Hacking. I think it's almost been universally agreed that it's not worth the time to learn.

But yeah, there's about a billion other topics about this, try doing a search.

I guess my searching abilities suck. . .

Where exactly is the comparison given? Can someone please provide links to pertinent posts?

Then thing is that there really isn't any one particular thread comparing everything at once. There are threads for just about every aspect of the game, but it might be a bit difficult to wade through all of those because they the tend to turn into long rants.

With the change over to everything being wireless and the consolidation of deckers and riggers into hackers, there is a massive amount of difference between SR3 and SR4 dealing with the Matrix.
For one thing, people are actually learning the rules since they are no longer so intimidatingly complicated. This leads to more use of them in gameplay.
Also, hacking fits quite easily in with the rest of the system and there is no longer then need/desire for the rest of the group to get up and stretch or go out for munchies when its time for the hacker to do his thing.

Another big difference I've noticed is that with the variable magic rating groups have a higher percentage of awakened characters. I have one group of players that is 2/3 awakened.

There are many other differences, but I those are the two biggest I've noticed.

Some of the bad things about the new system is that there are alot of grey areas in the rules and rules that are missing/contradictory. This is obvious if you read through virtually any thread. Hopefully, these issues will be solved in later printings and/or new releases. But for the time being the GM has to make a lot of judgement calls on things, whereas SR3 by now is fairly thoroughly documented with all the sourcebooks that has been released.

Overall, I like the new system. It runs more smoothly and is easier for new players to learn (a big plus since I've had lots of problems convincing people to learn SR3).
If you are looking to get new players in your group, I'd suggest using SR4.
If you are the patient type and want to have official rulings on everything and all the gear from SR3, then stick with SR3 until more sourcebooks are released.
If you aren't the patient type, but willing to accept other people's judgements and conversions of gear/rules, you'll need to do a ton of reading here, but you could easily run SR4 with all of the equipment/rules not listed/thoroughly explained in the BBB.

Thanks Slacker.

Third edition really annoyed me with the complexity of the rigging and Matrix systems. There was just too much stuff to remember and plug in. They really need to stop wasting time adding more rules and instead make source books that are information and equipment oriented. More information about what comprises the world rather than more rules.

More rules don’t make a game based upon imagination better. . .it just takes longer to tell and experience the story.


Has vehicle combat been made easier?


I personally prefer the ability to make things up as you go along, insofar as rules. It can be rather annoying when there are a ton of rules to observe. It makes you sometimes feel like things are set in stone. In other words, if it’s there you should be using it.

Thanks a lot, guys, especially for the last 3 posts: they were what I was asking for.
I get confused with all these threads, so I asked for a "overall" thing. ANyway I will start reading all these threads.
A last thing, what do you think of this review?

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11704.phtml

I've noticed that some of the points made by the author (especially the lack of some information and/or its contradictory nature) are also present in your posts....but how much do you accept all the negative points of this reviewer?

exactly, he enlists many good things...but what about the criticism??

these are:

1) longer character creation process + no "overview of character creation"+"arbitrary limits imposed on characters" which "force characters to be very generalized"+"all kinds of needless complications"

2) "mechanical problems" with skills so that "the super-legendary will tend to only score moderate successes over the average Joe".

3) very complicated combat in which melee, guns and vehicle are all much more different systems than before and "while the rules say that everything is just opposed tests, you're given huge tables of modifiers for each different type, and different skills that apply".

4) hacking: no clarity about "what skills were to be used with what program"

5) Matrix combat: "choices are pretty much restricted to attack or full defense" since "there isn't a long list of attack options here: once again, we're given an extremely vauge description, with few actual rules mentioned".

6) "This is not Shadowrun anymore" + "the changes are that dramatic"

7) and finally: "I just didn't find it to be special enough to be really worthwhile. There are some real gems here, but they're buried under a lot of heavy crunch. Most of the smooth parts of the game seem to be lifted wholesale from the new World of Darkness"

Finishing the reading of this review I came out less happy of SR4 but I want to know: is all this criticism fair or is it exagerated??

exaggerated. Greatly.

I've been playing since 1st edition, with it's disorganized organization and clumsy combat system.

I've been through 2nd edition, which I believe personally was the my preferred system overall but suffered from problems of efficiency and playability when things got number crunchy.

Then there was 3rd. Yeah. Moving on.

And now, we have 4th.

As a fan of second I had simply stopped buying shadowrun stuff. They were killing what I loved but I accepted that and said 'Oh well moving on'. But, one of my roommates bought 4th edition on a whim and said 'Come-on, give it a chance!' and I did.

I really enjoyed it. It's easy to teach, it's easy to learn, a lot of power goes back to the GM. It does feel a bit too much like world of darkness, but that has helped it more than hurt to be honest. A huge number of converts have come over from WoD people that can't stand their new system and storyline.

Also they finally resolved the big thing! Decking and Rigging are doable in game! As in, while playing!

Lastly, it's faster but not dumbed down. Once you figure out how to do it, combat can run faster than it has in any other system I have played save for one or two really simplified systems outside of shadowrun, yet there are still a variety of tactical options as to what and how you manage a fight.

Overall, I found it an approvement but I can see why the sell is hard for some. 2nd edition will forever be my favorite, yet 4th has more than enough redeeming factors for my preference of running it for the newer generation that has starting gaining interest in our old favorite.

(The way you get what I call the 'Two minute combat turn' is through maneuver sheets for all, declaring the lighting conditions ahead of time, and getting players used to not sitting around going 'Ummm.... Errr..... I could.....'.)

1) not sure what he's talking about here... i suppose if you have difficulties counting by fours or tens character creation might be more complex... sorta... and if you consider the addition of flaws and traits to be a major addition to the core rules that will take longer, i suppose you could say it takes longer. as far as i can tell, the several pages where they walk you through the design of two characters as they explain the rules would constitute an "overview" more or less. you do face arbitrary limits, but that's mostly not the character design system, it's the game itself. you can still make a very specific character. as far as i can tell, what he's talking about here is the fact that you can only have 1 skill at 6 or two at 5, the rest must be 4 or lower. however, since 6 is the maximum, i would argue that starting with a 6 is much like starting with a 10 or more in SR3, and is therefore *more* specialised then you were capable of being in earlier editions at character creation.

personally, the only thing i agree with in that is the arbitrary limitations... which i don't think should be too hard to remove, you will have to allow higher rating gear and such to compensate though.

2) this goes back to the arbitrary limit thing... i do agree with this. since the highest you can get in a skill is a 7 (and that requires a trait to do so), and players can actually start with a 7 if they have that trait, it is somewhat true, that's for sure. especially if they also start out at or near the racial maximum for the attribute. legendary characters will be much better at the field that they are good at, however, while the players will just be at the limit of one of those skills. for example, you could be really really good at hacking, but you won't be anywhere near as good at writing software or working with hardware as a legendary hacker such as fastjack would be. i still don't like the limit, but more for the fact that i don't like the idea of eventually someday just not being able to improve at all, even if by the time a character gets to that point, there will probably be a 5th edition of SR

3) ermmm... huge tables? most of those tables are pretty darn near the same as the ones in SR3. i don't see what he's complaining about. yes, the rules have changed... and in general, they are *faster*, not slower. they also allow for less complexity. if you like the complexity of SR3, you probably won't like the simplicity of SR4, i'll give you that. the game has been very much streamlined.

4)for all intents and purposes, the players will pretty much always be using hacking. however, to be more specific; if it's something where they would be allowed to do it legally, they would probably use computer skill. if you are searching for data, it's probably data search (bhoy, sure is hard to figure that one out). if you're trying to do something illegal, or make a device do something it normally wouldn't do or for which you don't have the privilege of telling it to do, it's hacking. i think that pretty much covers it. [sarcasm] gee, that sure was hard to understand [/sarcasm]

5) obviously he hasn't looked at the SR3 rules lately, IMO, if he's complaining about a lack of clarity in matrix rules. i'm not sure what he's talking about... there are 3 different attack programs, several programs to defend against various things. you can trace your opponent, try to crash it, use black IC type attacks, and whatnot. in fact, if you feel comfortable with ignoring your attacker, you can even keep on doing other regular hacking actions... like trying to get control of the IC i suppose, though that depends on the GM's decision of how the node you are in is designed. the vaguness is somewhat there, but it's not really a problem. i highly recommend this thread for a good example of hacking.

6) shadowrun is the flavor, not the mechanics. i could play shadowrun D20 and it would still be shadowrun. i could play Shadowrun GURPS and it would still be shadowrun.

7) well, since i've never played any of the World of Darkness games, i can't vouch for that. i can tell you know, the system does have problems in need of errata... contradictory text, missing rules, and untouchable spirits being among them. if you have a problem with looking up errata for things, then i guess that would be a problem for you. sometimes you may have to adopt houserules. if that's a problem for you, then i'm not sure why you're playing pen and paper games... you may as well just play the computer versions if you don't want to be able to modify things to work the way you want them to, since (quite frankly) the computer versions go much quicker.

overall, i would say the criticism he gave that you listed is frequently exaggerated, and in some cases, he apppears to have been suffering from hallucinations.

I have to say that I agree with most of the reviewer's criticisms of the SR4 book layout, but with none of his criticisms of the system.

If it's to be believed that joe average (who is actually a 'professional' by the skill ratings system) has gotten his hands onto identical gear to FastJack, or that fastjack is slumming it and using an off-the-shelf commlink and somehow has his enhancing cyberware/bioware turned-off/removed, then average joe has less than a 0.2% chance of beating fastjack. I think that seems fair.

The section where he talks about edge (and the other special attributes) also strikes me as being written unnessecarily negatively. What does it matter that everybody can get the same edge? Wasn't that practically the case in SR3 where a similar entity manifested itself as karma pool? All of the special attributes existed in SR3, yet he introduces them as a complicating factor? How can one man be so negative?

Sadly the reviewer didn't cover any of the great steps forwards that have been made by SR4 either. Friends in melee is no longer the death scentence it was in SR3, reach is a good modifier, but not as potentially crippling as it was before

I read through the rules and time and time again noticed that something which was perviously broken has been fixed with the new mechanics.The new mechanics also seem to work well, and I far prefer the system for buying gear to that in SR3. Now fixer contacts can actually get socially inept characters gear where before your character couldn't find anything without a good ettiquette skill.

The one part that I don't like about the new contacts system is that your best buddy, who'd put their life on the line for you, will charge the same "finder's fee" as a 'just business' contact would. That can be explained away in-part, however, by saying that the finder's fee is paid for in drinks and contact upkeep rather than hard cash but I still think there should be discounts for good friends. I suppose it can also be explained by saying that these are the shadows and money is money, depending on how you like to run it.

SO Kagentenshi and Eyeless Blond, do you want to say that, summarizizang many things and even considering some obvious improvement, SR4 is not that better than Sr3??

Well, yes and no. SR4 really isn't a revision of SR3 in terms of rules in the way that SR1, SR2, and SR3 are revisions. It's a total rewrite of the rules from the ground up, based on a static TN system rather than variable TN. The only thing that's really stayed the same is Essense, and the fact that magic is infinitely scalable while mundane has a finite--though not usually reachable during normal play--cap. Taken in that context, SR4 is a modestly successful RPG. It's reasonably well put-together, is moderately easy to learn, and is pretty fun to play and fairly easy to use (certainly easier to use than SR3, which is the main point in its favor.)

In my opinion, Shadowrun 4 would be a very good first try for a brand new company putting out its first RPG product.

Fanpro is not a new company, however, and this is not its first RPG product. This is the fourth generation of a very successful and well-developed RPG, and written by people who had a hand in SR3 (and even earlier editions of SR from what I heard.) In that context SR4 is very rough around the edges. It really needed another six months or more of playtesting, to iron out the bugs in the rules themselves. It really needed to go through the editing process and have a few blind readings by independent readers, to deal with layout, formatting, and readability issues.

In that context, it's not the mature product that a fourth edition should be. It reads as if it were rushed out the door months before it was really ready, which, if you looked at the history behind the testing, right up to publication, it was. The game could have been planned out and written so much better, but it wasn't. That's why I'm disappointed, and it seems like Kag is the same.

Well now let's be fair.

The Matrix rules are simpler. Sure, there are just as many programs as the core SR3 book, and don't do an especially good job of letting you know what skill goes with what use of which program. They use a quirky mechanic which doesn't line up well with any of the other mechanics (Skill+Program instead of the more intuitive Attribute+Skill, number of successes limited to Program rating). They set up device ratings oddly, such that a 1000Y pair of cybereyes--or for that matter a 25Y credstick--is harder to hack than a 4,500Y commlink. The rules concerning Response loss due to running too many programs can be interpreted four different ways, with results varying from a cascading loss of Response *and* System to being able to run every program in the game simultaneusly without crashing that 4,500Y commlink. They make everything about the Matrix-at-large so vague and gray that even setting up security in a simple building is a colossal headache. But it's still... simpler?

Hmm, okay, let's look elsewhere.

The chargen and advancement rules are... damn can't look here either. The new 400BP system is so intricate that it would have been just as complicated, not to mention a whole lot more unified, to just switch everything to a Karma-based system.

Could someone remind me where the obvious fixes are again?

There is complexity, and worse yet, complexity without value. The cost of attributes changes at arbitrary values. There are edges that change that arbitrary value. The number of attributes being purchased can change based on an edge. There are arbitrary limits to the number of skills and attributes that may have certain values. None of this adds anything.

~J

Indeed, I'm also definitely not claiming that SR4 is more complex than SR3, or even in the same league. What I am claiming is that it is nonetheless still complex, and that the complexity does not add value (whereas it frequently does in SR3).

~J

Your answers start to be interesting to me.
For the moment I have decided to not try 4th edition.
Maybe I will have a look on the book but do not start playing anything.
We do not play that often (due to things like university, job, etc..) and we still have problems familiarizing myself with some of SR3 mechanics, especially rigger 3 & Matrix.
I find these books wonderfull for the level of detail...but chaotic in letting one learn things.
There is no sense for me in starting now a new thing, especially if I consider all the money I've spent to get all SR3 books.
A strange thing is that Fanpro tried to give a good, playable, simplified version of vehicle rules (and matrix...but it is too simplified for my tastes) in Mr.Johnson's little black book, which is one of the latest of Sr3.
OK, it's not a complete, whole set of rules but a just a simplification of old stuff. However one get rid of all these stupid "scores" even in vehicle vs vehicle combat (which was not suggested by the Rigger 3 simplified optional vehicle vs people system).
Why did they did it so late when one was supposed to leave Sr3 for Sr4?
Anyway what really sounds odd is the 4 months of playtesting of Sr4.
As far as I know D&D3 was developed and playtested in about 2 years.
OK D20 has still plenty of problems (without considering the disgusting robbery which is doing a 3.5....) but, at the end of the day, it was a sincere, real improvement from AD&D2....a sentence that really few people can criticize because it is objectively true!
They get rid of all the senseless limitations of AD&D2.
Why Fanpro let SR4 come out so soon?
What real limitations they get rid off?
Maybe they were developing the game for longer but were 4 months of playtesting enough to understand if the new game was really improving something?
I do not know since I've not yet read the SR4 book, maybe I will have a look.

Well don't completely shun it. Like it or not, SR4 is the future, and you'll have a hard time keeping up with the jonses if you stick with old editions.

The game itself isn't all that bad either. It's just that whenever I look at the rules I see places where the writers just adopted things from SR3 that didn't fit, even outright cut-and-pasting in the spirits chapter. I see places where they threw in half-thought-through ideas because they were running on such an arbitrary and stupid self-imposed deadline. I see places where the book's layout could have been altered just a little bit to improve readability. I still disagree with some of the basic philosophies behind the design--I still think that it's possible to implement variable TNs *and* include thresholds without destroying the game's playability. But I can still see where they're going with this, and I'm disappointed that the book and the rules aren't great, rather than merely adequate.

I've found they removed some major limitations. It is now possible to run a mage who use the matrix, one of my group is an adept break in artist who has some hacking skills for opening sec systems up. Sure she is not as good as the pure hacker but in the group but thats the price of playing a multi class character.

It is now possible to play a useful mundane un-cybered character.

Sure magic progression is uncapped but when wasn't it?

Cyberware is now priced at prices that mean you don't have to save for an entire ten week campaign to gain one point of reactions (I believe the bill was close to 3 million, for 1 extra point of reaction...)

Technomancers (what otaku are now) actually have a point rather than being obnoxious kids who the real hackers outstrip in a couple og weeks play.

I can now explain the system to a newbie and they get it first time. I saw this a limitation, one of the brightest player I know was I a game of mine and after ten sessions was still getting her head round the various pools.

I've played shadowrun for years and think SR4 is the best iteration of the rules, Its certainly better than SR3 which was oddly broken in to many places.

As to why fanpro pushed it to get to release date? They wanted to release at GenCon for the marketting buzz... thats business sense to me, maybe they could have waited a year, but thats what it would have been.

They range from nearly impossible to fix (flaws in the entire attribute+skill(+/-)modifier system) to time-consuming (completely redo the modifiers to damage for ammunition, remembering this time that one point of DV is roughly equal to three damage resistance dice) to relatively easy (redo the concealability chart, or scrap it and go back to per-item concealability). They're so pervasive, though, as to in my opinion render the game not worth fixing. I'm speaking of the end-user, here—if and when FanPro gives a go at SR5, I'll probably take a look.

Examples, mostly cut and pasted from my posts in other threads or other forums:

Characters rolling large numbers of dice (there's some vagueness on how high you can go, but I've seen up to eighteen on builds that I'm pretty sure are legal) get Immunity to Normal Modifiers. If you have eighteen dice and are running (-2) in melee combat (-3) in full darkness (-6) at extreme range (-3), you still expect a success—80% chance of one. The comparable situation in SR3 involves a TN of 9 (range) + 8 (full darkness) + 2 (melee) + 4 (running), or 23. With twenty-four dice (insane by SR3 standards), that's under 4% chance of success. In SR3, when you try to hit someone you can't see at extreme range while you're running and someone's beating on you, you actually miss.

APDS, flechette, and gel ammo are mechanically nearly identical. APDS is more likely to cause physical damage and is more expensive, gel round is the least expensive. Physical tracks are, both on average and for the maximum, longer than stun damage tracks, therefore stun is more desirable anyway. EX-EX, meanwhile, is flat-out more effective in terms of average damage dealt, though admittedly it's likely to cause stun. Note that this is the case even against armored opponents—rounds designed to break apart on impact kill people in heavy armor better than rounds designed to penetrate armor.

A two-foot stick is just as hard to conceal as a submachine gun or a sword.

A machine pistol (glorified light pistol) is harder to conceal than a heavy pistol, and equal in concealability to a medkit.

(The following are examples of additional significant flaws, not examples of the above-mentioned items)

To dodge, you must trade a complex action for your opponent's simple action.

Edge varies dramatically in power based on game length and refresh amount. For a one-shot campaign, the character with seven Edge will eat everyone. In a long-term campaign it's much less important unless refreshes occur regularly. This is also the case in SR3, but Karma Pool was not something you paid for.

Game balance by GM fiat. "We're going to make some powerful magical ability really cheap, but don't take it unless you really mean it!" (Example: adepts, technomancers)

And the stuff Eyeless already mentioned. I could keep going, but I've got laundry to do.

~J

@Kagetenshi: My devil's advocate gene is kicking in here, but I don't really find many of those criticisms to hold that much weight.

Is "immunity to normal modifiers" really that bad? Surely somebody throwing 18 dice on an attack is supernaturally good? The character is going to need to know that there is somebody there, implying that they can hear the enemy, saw their position perviously (before the lights went out), or have otherwise been told where they were. It's understandable that someone should probably miss given the circumstances, but even the most dedicated and skillful human is only throwing 14 dice which is an automatic failure unless they're spending edge for a lucky shot.

I'll wait ntil I've tried some proper gameplay before I make-up my mind about problems with the ammo and physical/stun system. It does sound like it might be a bit off, however.

Technically you don't need to spend an action to doge either, as you get to dodge using your reaction anyway. You can spend a complex action to dodge, but that adds your dodge skill on defense against all attacks for a round. Thus one complex action may be worth 20 simple actions if 10 people are shooting at you.

Edge refreshes every session... How would this make edge more valuable in a 1-off than in an extended campaign?

Is making a non-serious adept wothwhile? Would it really be imbalancing? Isn't it more a case of game flavour by GM fiat? It costs a lot to be able to do anything with magic, and they're both impacted adversely by taking cyber. Have there been any examples of someone 'abusing' the cheap cost of adept/technomancy abilities 'when they didn't really mean it'? It strikes me that the 'unless they really mean it' restrictions are unnessecary writing rather than system faults.

edge refreshes when the GM says so, no sooner, no later. every session may be a guideline, and your GM may do it that way, but it is not "the rules", which basically say edge refreshes whenever the DM decides so.

as far as the observations that SR4 could have used more playtesting and better editting... i'll agree to that. i'm used to reading WotC stuff, and while you may or may not like D&D, i have to say i've gotten used to specific terms meaning specific things in the rules and whatnot, and it would be nice to see that same kind of quality control in SR products.

i don't think it makes for that big of a problem, though. it's just something that would be nice...

Just one thing first, can you just use the term SR4? It seems silly to try to introduce your own TLA at this point for no useful reason. SR4 is the accepted term, just use that.

I prefer per-session Edge refresh just because it's one less thing to track from week to week.

But yeah, it largely depends on just how long your sessions are and how active your dice are. We do blocks of 5 hours, and some folks still cruise that without spending a single point (or possibly rolling dice at all, depending on what's going on).

I haven't seen anyone use it willy-nilly yet just because it's burning a hole in their pocket. Although when the clock gets down to the last hour of gameplay, people do start using it a bit more often.

Micheal Jordan is a good example of a legend that isn't composed entirely of the skill he is generally known for. The legend was a mix of a lot of skills, on and off court, and the situation he was in.

The NBA is centered on a star system, and players up the scale basically get referee 'leaway'. Roughly speaking you are allowed a 1/2 step traveling per year after 2 years in the league. Who gets assigned the foul, if any at all, in a collision is determined by a mixture of total value of endorsement contracts, whether or not you play on the Lakers, minor points to other big market team members, minuses to teams like the T-Wolves that people only watch by accident, and of course seniority.

Ok, that's partially tongue in cheek. But if you ever watch the video of Micheal Jordan's last basket watch closely how he uses the defender as a freakin' stepladder. He was a smart player, [mostly] kept his public nose clean, and had stunning physical ability for a period. But he wasn't all that for nearly the time people think, and a lot of it was him standing on the shoulders of his teammates, and they on his.