i'm sure critiques are posted somewhere but i'm lazy. please refer me to revelant place.
anywho I bought this thing about a month ago. I've read it, interesting, but it really did grab my groin like the 3 did. i dunno. VR is an interesting concept. thoughts?
Full Version: bought shadowrun 4
It has returned...
If you were into SR3, check out the conversion thread up at the top of the page, you can compare the two a little. Otherwise, you gotta be more specific if you want to start up a dialog.
VR is an interesting concept, yes. It's not all that different from SR3, though. It's AR that's actually interesting.
VR is an interesting concept, yes. It's not all that different from SR3, though. It's AR that's actually interesting.
@Hocus Pocus, Im there with you man. If you have the luck of being able to find an SR3 group, enjoy it until the mages realize they can completely neutralize drain regularly in SR4.
The GMs in my group find SR4 much easier to run, and I personally like throwing more dice at a constant TN(5). The setting is no where near as strong as SR3, and I think that is what you mean by it did[n't] grab you by the pants. Skills are also much more expensive and not as usefull/important.
There are pros and cons to each, and Ive come to love SR4 like I never thought I would. I still love SR3, and I am conveniently in a group that does both. Find your place.
PS-Hackers and Riggers were bastardized, if you like to play them, stick to SR3.
The GMs in my group find SR4 much easier to run, and I personally like throwing more dice at a constant TN(5). The setting is no where near as strong as SR3, and I think that is what you mean by it did[n't] grab you by the pants. Skills are also much more expensive and not as usefull/important.
There are pros and cons to each, and Ive come to love SR4 like I never thought I would. I still love SR3, and I am conveniently in a group that does both. Find your place.
PS-Hackers and Riggers were bastardized, if you like to play them, stick to SR3.
Well personally my thoughts are as thus:
I really like merging Shamans and Mages as well as the Threat Trads under one set of Rules.
I like the TN 5, I understand that from a pure math standpoint that a set TN isn't as 'good' as having flaoting TNs, but it is easier for me to run.
The Wireless Matrix isn't really all the hard provided you understand that despite the hype, the corps didn't really tear everything out and start from stratch, the 'wireless' part is just bolted on top of the old wired Matrix. (Yes, I'm fully aware that doing so wouldn't be the 'right' way in the Real World, but Shadowrun Computing has never matched up with Real Life so I'm not bothered by it.)
Riggers did get a raw deal, although I hope that changes with some more Source Books.
And I've found that its much easier to give characters 500 BP then 400, feels more Third Edition to me.
I'm don't like the fact that Skills aren't as important anymore, but that is easily House-Ruled away, and I'm sitting on the fence when it comes to the hard caps.
All in all, I like Fourth, but I do agree that flavorwise its it lacking something that Third had...
I really like merging Shamans and Mages as well as the Threat Trads under one set of Rules.
I like the TN 5, I understand that from a pure math standpoint that a set TN isn't as 'good' as having flaoting TNs, but it is easier for me to run.
The Wireless Matrix isn't really all the hard provided you understand that despite the hype, the corps didn't really tear everything out and start from stratch, the 'wireless' part is just bolted on top of the old wired Matrix. (Yes, I'm fully aware that doing so wouldn't be the 'right' way in the Real World, but Shadowrun Computing has never matched up with Real Life so I'm not bothered by it.)
Riggers did get a raw deal, although I hope that changes with some more Source Books.
And I've found that its much easier to give characters 500 BP then 400, feels more Third Edition to me.
I'm don't like the fact that Skills aren't as important anymore, but that is easily House-Ruled away, and I'm sitting on the fence when it comes to the hard caps.
All in all, I like Fourth, but I do agree that flavorwise its it lacking something that Third had...
| QUOTE (Ravor) |
| Riggers did get a raw deal, although I hope that changes with some more Source Books. |
never mind arsenal, with the way things are going i'll just rely on missions
the latest mission has finally gotten around to providing rules for something which many a rigger has been looking to do, i am sure
(granted, very not canonical rules, but rules nonetheless!)
I haven't looked at the latest 'Mission' file yet, what do they cover?
eh, well, i guess this won't spoil anything much... still, if your GM is a paranoid nut, then don't open this:
[ Spoiler ]
Sweet.
| QUOTE (Jaid) |
| eh, well, i guess this won't spoil anything much... s |
So, we actually write a little ways ahead for Missions. To the point that I haven't actually read Critical Care through since late March. I was reading through this thread going, "WTF did we do?"
But, right -- we did address your spoiler. However, I wouldn't suggest that you consider it a "permanent" fix.
I really really really like what they did with hackers. I like skill being more important than having a multi million nuyen piece of equipment that could be taken away. I like that hacking is now done quickly and frequently, and can be done in line with ongoing action. Before (especially eariler editions) hacking was only done every so often and generally it was the time that other players would go get some pizza.
Adepts aren't purely better than sammies now. Though mages are still very potent compared to other chars.
I think on the whole I enjoy 4th ed rules in 2nd ed settings/adventures.
Adepts aren't purely better than sammies now. Though mages are still very potent compared to other chars.
I think on the whole I enjoy 4th ed rules in 2nd ed settings/adventures.
The main thing to realize about SR4 is that it is a real departure from previous editions - it is more or less a new game. Don't compare Attribute and skill ratings to SR3 - they mean completely different things in SR4. In SR4, a skill of 6 or 7 is the highest that anyone can get, ever. So SR4 characters might seem weaker simply looking at the numbers, but they are actually pretty tough within the SR4 game world itself.
There are actually a lot of things to like in SR4.
I like the Edge Attribute, which is more versatile than the old Karma Pool, and also lets you start out with a "lucky" character at character creation.
I like how Virtual Reality is everywhere now, and most characters, not simply hackers, are plugged into VR to some extent most of the time.
I like how Magic is an Attribute like any other one, giving you the option of starting out weaker as a mage (but more well-rounded in other areas) if you want to.
I like the skill + Attribute mechanic, which makes Attributes mean more, and gives you those big handfuls of dice to roll.
I like how the main book is more complete - it may not have everything, but at least you can start out with edges and flaws (called qualities now), bioware, initiation, submersion (for technomancers, previously otaku), and a decent starting selection of critters.
There are actually a lot of things to like in SR4.
I like the Edge Attribute, which is more versatile than the old Karma Pool, and also lets you start out with a "lucky" character at character creation.
I like how Virtual Reality is everywhere now, and most characters, not simply hackers, are plugged into VR to some extent most of the time.
I like how Magic is an Attribute like any other one, giving you the option of starting out weaker as a mage (but more well-rounded in other areas) if you want to.
I like the skill + Attribute mechanic, which makes Attributes mean more, and gives you those big handfuls of dice to roll.
I like how the main book is more complete - it may not have everything, but at least you can start out with edges and flaws (called qualities now), bioware, initiation, submersion (for technomancers, previously otaku), and a decent starting selection of critters.
see, ever since i posted i had been meaning to re read it and see what I really liked and did not like, but i haven't. Not interested at all. Dunno, maybe once make more novels...or maybe i should buy more source books to pad my knowledge?
| QUOTE (Ancient History) |
| It has returned... |
Bell Bottoms? wha, should i take mine out of storage. WOOT! time for cheap collone and disco balls!
Personally i like, that the rules of riggers, hackers and mages are now compareable to the rules of the rest of the game.
But i like the setting and the rules of SR3 in general better. I am playing SR4 at this time, but maybe we will switch sometimes back to a little game of sr3... but no one of my group except for me has expierience with it.
But i like the setting and the rules of SR3 in general better. I am playing SR4 at this time, but maybe we will switch sometimes back to a little game of sr3... but no one of my group except for me has expierience with it.
| QUOTE (Hocus Pocus) | ||
Bell Bottoms? wha, should i take mine out of storage. WOOT! time for cheap collone and disco balls! |
lol. we got a girl called disco inferno. She likes moltov cocktails and can you guess what she wears.
I'm a 3rd Ed guy...it just feels better. Maybe I'm just too old school though...give me bugs over shedim any day. Hackers have to leave their apartment and, knowing many real hackers, that doesn't happen very often at all Characters seem underpowered, the metaplot feels stagnant now, the world doesn't feel as "alive" anymore (but a few non-rules based sourcebooks in a couple of years could fix that), the set target number takes away things like people attempting neigh-impossible feats and succeed if they roll a 38 thanks to the rule of 6...plus it feels like the new Vampire where a simplified system works fine because the system's always been that way, but Shadowrun is more adventure and combat based and making it so easy just takes away a lot of the fine tweaking you can do...just stuff like that I loved about the older system.
Not saying 4th Ed is bad...it's just not for me. I'd love to play in a game, but I wouldn't want to run one because it feels too...I don't know, constricting? My personal opinion only, take it for what it's worth. And yes, I'm still picking up all the books as they come out if that says anything.
The Abstruse One
Characters seem underpowered, the metaplot feels stagnant now, the world doesn't feel as "alive" anymore (but a few non-rules based sourcebooks in a couple of years could fix that), the set target number takes away things like people attempting neigh-impossible feats and succeed if they roll a 38 thanks to the rule of 6...plus it feels like the new Vampire where a simplified system works fine because the system's always been that way, but Shadowrun is more adventure and combat based and making it so easy just takes away a lot of the fine tweaking you can do...just stuff like that I loved about the older system. Not saying 4th Ed is bad...it's just not for me. I'd love to play in a game, but I wouldn't want to run one because it feels too...I don't know, constricting? My personal opinion only, take it for what it's worth. And yes, I'm still picking up all the books as they come out if that says anything.
The Abstruse One
My biggest like, which many don't like, in SR4 is that as a GM, there is so much open to interpretation and abstracting rules in a fairly simple way...well, once you have a solid understanding of the core mechanics.
Because the target numbers are fixed and the thresholds are very simply (I mean, what is easier than 1 thru 4), you have a mechanism to be a great storyteller. Someone has a neigh impossible task, give them a threshold of 4...give them plenty of penalties to get that dice pool down, they can use edge to still get exploding dice...PC comes out with 4 net successes...wow! Now there is a change for a creative GM to really tell a story!!!
On the downside, this obviously makes some feel very uncomfortable when there is not a rule to look up for "everything".
Because the target numbers are fixed and the thresholds are very simply (I mean, what is easier than 1 thru 4), you have a mechanism to be a great storyteller. Someone has a neigh impossible task, give them a threshold of 4...give them plenty of penalties to get that dice pool down, they can use edge to still get exploding dice...PC comes out with 4 net successes...wow! Now there is a change for a creative GM to really tell a story!!!
On the downside, this obviously makes some feel very uncomfortable when there is not a rule to look up for "everything".
Some "meat" got pulled away from the tech 'classes' sepcifically, but I dare say it was content that 75% of the groups running older versions of SR were either not using much or house ruling into a simpler, faster, set of rules.
The "setting" is still Shadowrun, and a lot of non-rule material from older products is still useful as far as setting the tone of the world the game is set in.
I love 4E. Now if I could just get a small group of people in Northern VA together to play a couple of times a month.
The "setting" is still Shadowrun, and a lot of non-rule material from older products is still useful as far as setting the tone of the world the game is set in.
I love 4E. Now if I could just get a small group of people in Northern VA together to play a couple of times a month.
now that this tread is here i would like to day i am very new to this game. i juts got my book like not even 3 months ago and never experienced shadowrun 3rd E and was wondering how different was it. and why is it so dare i say "bad." i love the fact that hackers aren't hermits and they can actually kinda hold them self in combat. and i love the setting but i do think it will get better with and actualy get a decent amount conflicts with some fluff books and i plan on buying runners hevan soon so that might help with my envisioning of the cities. but i would love to see how astoundingly different it is.
I find that the SR4 setting in the main book is just as good as the SR3 setting in the SR3 main book. I think that a lot of people's opinions about how the setting was gutted and is no longer "cyberpunkish" or "gritty" enough comes from a biased view based off of how much time and money they invested in SR3. Did any of the SR2 players say the same about SR3 when it came out? Same mechanics, yes, but different attitude.
I'm still on the fence about 4th Ed. I've played SR from the old 1st edition with Staging Codes (a 6M4 damage code was a pain to reduce, S level damage was even worse with high staging codes) through SR3. I've not had a chance to play in a SR4 group yet.
Though one thing that always got me wondering... why have a Target Number of 7? It mechanically was the same as a TN 6.
Though if any of you guys are in SE Virginia (Norfolk, Virginia Beach, etc) and have room for one more, give me a shout. I'd like to try out a SR4 campaign to see how I like it.
I'd hold one of my own but my old gaming group is spread across multiple states and I'm the only one on the east coast.
Though one thing that always got me wondering... why have a Target Number of 7? It mechanically was the same as a TN 6.
Though if any of you guys are in SE Virginia (Norfolk, Virginia Beach, etc) and have room for one more, give me a shout. I'd like to try out a SR4 campaign to see how I like it.
I'd hold one of my own but my old gaming group is spread across multiple states and I'm the only one on the east coast.
| QUOTE (darthmord) |
| Though one thing that always got me wondering... why have a Target Number of 7? It mechanically was the same as a TN 6. |
Because the designers had only a vagues of clues about statistics and probability. SR4 fixed that.
| QUOTE (kzt) | ||
Because the designers had only a vagues of clues about statistics and probability. SR4 fixed that. |
Actually setting a target at 7 instead of 6 does make a difference. Consider a case where a PC will get a -2 TN modifier, a TN of 5 is very different from TN 4.
| QUOTE (WhiskeyMac) |
| (...) I think that a lot of people's opinions about how the setting was gutted and is no longer "cyberpunkish" or "gritty" enough comes from a biased view based off of how much time and money they invested in SR3. Did any of the SR2 players say the same about SR3 when it came out?(...) |
Basically, when 3rd came out, I hated it's guts. Still do, though I never even touched it. And I don't mean the rules, from what I read of the core-book, they seemed ok, I even took the liberty to pinch some mechanichs. It was the "feel" of the "new" game that kept me off. I felt it took everything that was bad about how SR had developed during 2nd - overwhelming magic threats, Runners as "good guys" who save the world from "evil" conspiracies, all that superhero jazz - and took it through a nasty anime/LSD blender. The fact that I never really got into looking for a new group after my old one kinda dissolved. I just felt - and looking into forums and stuff at the time generally seemed to confirm this - that the "new" Shadowrun of the time wasn't the gritty, dark game that I had enjoyed.
With 4th Ed, i actually feel that the grit is back.
From what I read, I like the rules, I like how the hard caps try to take out some of the superrunner dickwaggling of the past, and I definitely like how the devs finally shot most of the metaplots in the face.
So yeah, now I only gots to find me an online group someday (because try as I might, I'll never ever again be able scrap enough time together to be a worthwile addition to any group... ah well)
/old man's rambling
I feel the opposite.
Now, suddenly characters can become superman faster than ever before, killing the grit. The revised Edge rules, while great in theory, really destroy any sense of grit the game has, because people can pull off -53 dice shots, and still have the same odds of succeding as before. As for setting, SR4 lacks one entirely. Seattle is missing, to it's detriment. What others consider to be "setting" is really world overview, which the SR4 BBB does have in roughly equal proportion to previous editions... but actual setting? Sorry, it's got *zero*.
Now, suddenly characters can become superman faster than ever before, killing the grit. The revised Edge rules, while great in theory, really destroy any sense of grit the game has, because people can pull off -53 dice shots, and still have the same odds of succeding as before. As for setting, SR4 lacks one entirely. Seattle is missing, to it's detriment. What others consider to be "setting" is really world overview, which the SR4 BBB does have in roughly equal proportion to previous editions... but actual setting? Sorry, it's got *zero*.
How an you say it's got zero when the previous three editions back it up, Cain? Hell, even the shadowrun web site lists the books from third edition that still apply and they're all the setting books. There's no reason you can use the "Shadows of ..." books for information in fourth edition, for example.
Plus Runner Havens is out, and it has a lot of setting info on a few major cities and several smaller ones. Goes into pretty good detail, and gives a nice idea of the sorts of things that would go into homebrewing a city yourself. Seattle and Hong Kong are the highlights.
Most of the previous edition material has been rendered obsolete by the new rules and setting. Shadowbeat, for example, isn't even useful as flavor anymore. Target: Matrix is pretty much obsolete as well.
[edit]
[edit]
| QUOTE |
| There's no reason you can use the "Shadows of ..." books for information in fourth edition, for example. |
Exactly.
[/edit]As for Runner Havens, well... Let's just say I don't have the highest opinion of Runner Havens.
You know I meant "can't" rather than "can." I don't have Shadowbeat so I can't speak to that one, but with the exception of the core SR3 rule books (CC, MitS, M&M, R3, and Matrix) and, obviously, the SR3 book itself, I frequently use the setting information from the third edition books in my games. Everything from DotSW to SoA is being used for my next campaign and I'll probably be using Cyberpirates as well. I guess I just can't agree with you when there's a decade-ish of setting information to be used, assuming one has the correct books.
You know although Runner Havens was a decent read, I have to agree with alot of Cain's points, it should have been named New Hong Kong, because the book makes Seattle look like a pitiful backwater when compared to Hong Kong.
| QUOTE (Ravor) |
| You know although Runner Havens was a decent read, I have to agree with alot of Cain's points, it should have been named New Hong Kong, because the book makes Seattle look like a pitiful backwater when compared to Hong Kong. |
Seattle Metropolitan Area: 3.3 Million
Seattle Port Container Load: 3 Million TEUs
Hong Kong Metropolitan Area: 6.9 Million
Hong Kong Port Container Load: 23 Million TEUs
Seattle is a pitiful backwater compared to Hong Kong.
-Frank
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) | ||
Seattle Metropolitan Area: 3.3 Million Seattle Port Container Load: 3 Million TEUs Hong Kong Metropolitan Area: 6.9 Million Hong Kong Port Container Load: 23 Million TEUs Seattle is a pitiful backwater compared to Hong Kong. -Frank |
Not to mention south eastern China is going to have a few more people then Washington state.
Go Caracas!!!
| QUOTE |
| Seattle is a pitiful backwater compared to Hong Kong. |
Sure it is now. But that doesn't mean it has to be in 2070. Shit, Santa Barbara is a big fat nothing other than vacationers and students in 2007 (Roughly 120,000 people) but in 2070 it's THE smuggling port on the west coast that isn't Seattle.
Also remember that a lot of factors go into making a runner haven, not just shipping and population. If we use that comparison, the greater LA metroplex oughta make Hong Kong's metroplex look like small potatoes, since the LA 'plex has about 18 million vs. 6.9 million. But under no circumstances does that ACTUALLY make Hong Kong small potatoes. Cargo also doesn't make any given locale king - it's just one of many factors that can add up to make a major metroplex. Hong Kong turns 23 million vs the combined 11 million and change that Long Beach and LA combined turn, but nobody's gonna suggest LA is chump change in comparison. It's just that shipping isn't as big a deal to LA. Likewise with the SF Bay Area - Oakland is probably a third to a half of the TEUs of LA/Long Beach, but the area is still mighty prosperous.
Seattle's advantage is that it's got many political factions, a lot of warring criminal enterprises, and a hell of a lot of tech companies all vying for a piece of the pie. It's smaller, but it doesn't mean it's unimportant. Same goes for places like Newark, Baltimore, Fukuoka, or really any large city with sufficient warring interests.
Yeah, but they didn't have to make the differences that huge. The Hong Kong section was clearly a labor of love. Seattle was a labor of laziness.
I was prepared to hate the enitire book, but Hong Kong is really that well-written. The Seattle writeup was designed to be a disappointment.
I was prepared to hate the enitire book, but Hong Kong is really that well-written. The Seattle writeup was designed to be a disappointment.
In all honesty, I probably would've written it that way myself. That's just because Seattle is so 'known' to me, in terms of setting. Seattle's had 2 books and multiple smaller blurbs on it. Hong Kong's had a tiny section devoted to it.
Besides... Hong Kong is pretty sweet.
Besides... Hong Kong is pretty sweet.
IMO, they not only wrote Seattle poorly, but they actually demolished a lot of the flavor from the past. The Ork Underground is probably my biggest dissapointment in that regard. Seattle went from inspired to insipid.
The worst part is, the devs seem to think this is a good thing.
Hong Kong is pretty sweet; let's just say that original slogan was: "What happens in Hong Kong, stays in Hong Kong".
The worst part is, the devs seem to think this is a good thing.
Hong Kong is pretty sweet; let's just say that original slogan was: "What happens in Hong Kong, stays in Hong Kong".
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| IMO, they not only wrote Seattle poorly, but they actually demolished a lot of the flavor from the past. The Ork Underground is probably my biggest dissapointment in that regard. Seattle went from inspired to insipid. |
Really like what they wrote about Hong Kong.
Not sure about previous Seattle though or how it changed.
Our GM in 3rd tended to stay away from Seattle, claiming that it had been 'played out'. Running in Edinburgh Scotland was interesting though. I had a nice little place in the buried city. Entered either through a small buisness front or a storm drain.
| QUOTE (Ravor @ Jun 13 2007, 02:46 PM) |
| You know although Runner Havens was a decent read, I have to agree with alot of Cain's points, it should have been named New Hong Kong, because the book makes Seattle look like a pitiful backwater when compared to Hong Kong. |
I know that this is different from previous editions, and I'm sorry if it's not up to your liking, but the intention was to show Seattle as a down-on-its-luck city that has seen far better times. Both HK and Seattle offer runners a wealth of opportunities, if only from different perspectives (same with Caracas, Azania, and the other cities).
EDIT: Let me add that I like having a run down city for a change. In a way, Seattle reminds me of a good boxer who suffered one-too-many injuries, and is looking for a comeback.
That could have been accomplished while still making the city unique and developed. As it stands now, that's not Seattle, that's insert-name-here sprawl. What's more, according to Bull, that was on purpose. Sorry, but there's really no excuses for that insipid writing in a "core" location.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| That could have been accomplished while still making the city unique and developed. As it stands now, that's not Seattle, that's insert-name-here sprawl. What's more, according to Bull, that was on purpose. Sorry, but there's really no excuses for that insipid writing in a "core" location. |
Refresh my memory Cain, on what you're referring to? I'm blanking on having said that... Not saying I didn't say something like that, just don;t remember how or why I did
Bull
It's in the review, but I'll cite the relevant section for you:
| QUOTE |
| Well, I’m a known anti-SR4 guy around the net, so rather than starting with my own rant, let me start by quoting a major SR4 fan. Bull is probably the biggest (and definitely the largest =D) Shadowrun fan out there. Here’s what he has to say: “One of the other ideas behind these books is that the cities are designed to be somewhat malleable... Hong Kong and Seattle are presented as two distinctly different, yet still similar, locales. But you could file off the serial numbers and transport the Seattle info to, say, Minneapolis, if you really wanted. And the smaller write ups give additional info for other locales to help you transplant them, as easily.� |
I think it's important not to read too much into that quote, assuming it's an accurate quote. If you really wanted to, you can take locales and personalities out of the Hong Kong section and use them somewhere else. But I know I didn't write the Hong Kong material as a generic setting nor was I ever told to. The quote is accurate in that the cities in Runner Havens share similar themes and there are guidelines to applying those themes in other settings.
Oh, Hong Kong is an example of how it should have been done. You can't readily transport the Hong Kong writeup to Parsippany, or even Tokyo for that matter.
I wouldn't have read so much into that quote, if Runner Havens hadn't offered up oatmeal in the Seattle section. That's exactly how I'd write a generic setting.
BTW, Jay, what did you think of the review?
I wouldn't have read so much into that quote, if Runner Havens hadn't offered up oatmeal in the Seattle section. That's exactly how I'd write a generic setting.
BTW, Jay, what did you think of the review?
Bleh. Don't really remember anymore what I said and why, exactly Getting too old, I think *sigh*
Regardless, I think my general intention was as Demonseed said... Present a couple specific locales and give some very loose definition to a handful of others, all following the same theme. This would allow you to pretty readily "convert" whatever city you wanted to into a "core" setting for your game.
Shit, I've done that on a couple occasions pre-SR4. I've transplanted half of Seattle and a few bits of Chicago into Cleveland. Changed the Puget Sound and the surrounding ports to Lake Erie, drop Underworld 93, Dante's, and the other clubs mostly into The Flats, and go from there.
Personally I've always found all the "place books" to be little more than stuff to data mine anyways.
So take whatever I may have said with a grain of salt.
Bull
Getting too old, I think *sigh*Regardless, I think my general intention was as Demonseed said... Present a couple specific locales and give some very loose definition to a handful of others, all following the same theme. This would allow you to pretty readily "convert" whatever city you wanted to into a "core" setting for your game.
Shit, I've done that on a couple occasions pre-SR4. I've transplanted half of Seattle and a few bits of Chicago into Cleveland. Changed the Puget Sound and the surrounding ports to Lake Erie, drop Underworld 93, Dante's, and the other clubs mostly into The Flats, and go from there.
Personally I've always found all the "place books" to be little more than stuff to data mine anyways.
So take whatever I may have said with a grain of salt.
Bull
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| BTW, Jay, what did you think of the review? |
I don't review reviews.
I also don't write for them. I'm a selfish writer, I write for myself. And I'm my own worst critic. But when I wrapped up the Hong Kong material I felt pretty good about it. If I'm not gnawing at myself after writing something, that usually means I accomplished what I wanted to do.
Doesn't mean anyone else will like it, but even if everyone else hated it, I'd still be content.
You should read the review, then, I think you'd be pleasantly surprised.
I have to say that I thought Runner Havens, from start to finish, was superb. Very polished. And perhaps more importantly, I liked the information itself. It suggests consistent and realistic levels of power in different groups and realistic politics and interplay between everyone. Nice cover, too. I'm definitely looking forward to more setting books.
As to third edition, I never liked it much. I've played since 1st edition and I found 3rd more superficial and cartoony. An impression that came from the horrible sample characters artwork and cover, and stuck with me through all the material in it.
I do think that the lack of variable target numbers is a loss for 4th. It plays much more neatly, but it's now not possible to make an action a long-shot. Also, combat and spell casting pools added an exciting gambling edge to battles. But I still rate 4th very, very highly.
Hey Cain, I greatly enjoyed your review: it caused me to read the Hong Kong entry, which I had previously bypassed because SR in Asia is not my present GM-focus.
Also, I agree with your basic conclusion about the superiority of the Hong Kong entry to Seattle's. I noted that the former had a single author while the latter was apparently "written by committee."
Also, I agree with your basic conclusion about the superiority of the Hong Kong entry to Seattle's. I noted that the former had a single author while the latter was apparently "written by committee."
Thank you. I had that impression as well, which may explain why Seattle is written to the lowest common denominator.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.