*sigh*
Wushu and Capes fail to support your argument anymore than any of your previously mentioned points. They in fact expose the lack of a real position to debate from. Both of these games in fact require more self restraint and provide less restraint to/control of players/characters than Shadowrun. Your argument is something akin to "Oranges taste better than apples because I'm from Texas.. But I like oranges best, even though oranges stole their flavor from tangerines." It lacks any points that can be debated because it is based upon a series of emotional beliefs rather than a logical, fact based one.
*sigh*
In the end, anything further would degrade into an argument. I withdraw my attempts to persuade you that your position is considered by most to be extreme and unsupported by the facts.

You're absolutely right that some games have built in mechanics to address this. Dogs in the Vineyard and Spirit of the Century both do a great job with it as well.

However, implementing that sort of gameplay in SR4 would have required a much more dramatic revision to the game system. Games that implement this also don't implement the same level of "crunch" that has always been part and parcel with Shadowrun. Frankly, when you're focusing purely on this sort of storytelling, extra game mechanics are a hindrance, not a help. I'm sure some folks at the Forge or RPG.net would be able to go into amazing levels of detail arguing the differences between Narrativist and Gamist playstyles. In short, though, this sort of change would unquestionably have substantial impact on the entire playstyle of Shadowrun.

Looking for this sort of change in a traditional RPG that still espouses a mainstream GM:player divide isn't just a stretch. It goes far beyond a stretch, and ventures into the realm of looking for something to complain about for the sake of complaining.

I get the feeling that we are never going to see eye-to-eye on this issue. I feel that rules should be adapted if certain parts of them dont work (and there are plenty issues with SR4 RAW). I also feel that it is the GM's primary responsibility to maintain balance when the rules dont lean toward a balanced game. However, there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater! The SR4 system shows promise, and instead of throwing it all out and returning to SR3 (which is always an option if you want to), I think we should look at the issues that need resolution.

I find myself no longer able to refute your argument based solely on the fact that you claim the rules as a whole promote min-maxing (muchkining, power gaming). You may be right that the Rules As Written do indeed promote this, but I do not find it to be fault of every rule written.

I wonder what your argument would be if Edge was gained as Karma Pool was in SR3 (as per Knasser's house rules), thus preventing a character from having more than 3 edge at char gen. I also wonder how things would be if Critical Successes occurred when at least half the DP were 6's. This would make them about as rare as Glitches (which are fairly rare, IMO), and would lower the specialists "flair" if you will, making them more reliable than flashy.

I wouldn't mind a house rule that makes critical successes less likely, but I don't like that particular proposed house rule. A higher dice pool should make critical success more likely, not less likely, which is why that rule works for glitches, but doesn't fit for critical successes. Personally, I don't think they even need to be house ruled - they will be rare even for a hyper-specialist, and all they give is a bit of flavor.

As a matter of fact, the Veto principle of Wushu is probably one of the most potentially restrictive mechanics out there, yet it works to not only provide equal screen time, it reduces the need for self-restraint. The Principle of Narrative Truth gives much more narrative control to players than most other games on the market. It does have substantially different goals than Shadowrun, I admit, but see my response to John.

I'd have to say that with the level of revision, one may as well have switched things over to a more narrative style of play. There are certain games that have adapted more narrative styles into their system, all for the better. Shadowrun could easily have learned from many games, instead of slavishly imitating a single popular one. In fact, the new critical success rule can be seen as a small attempt at adding narrative controls into the game. So, there's already a small shift towards the narrative; it just could have been done a lot better, without losing the tactical "crunch" that is Shadowrun. Look at many of the other new tactical RPG's on the market, you'll see what I mean.

You're right. SR4 does show promise. However, I maintain that the issues run so deep, we need to reassess the core mechanics and design goals on the game. You can't keep putting band-aids on it.

I have the distinctive impression that a reassessment of the core mechanics is only needed if the design goals are changed.

In my opinion, problems only arrise were the core mechanic is not adhered to (your issue of edge, the matrix rules). So far, a few straps of band aid have indeed removed the issues completely. Augmentation gave (amongst other things) the best cyberlimb rules of all editions (since 2nd, can´t say for 1st). Riggers are playable now, Arsenal has to be my most favourite Rigger supplement, ever. It´s layout is also much closer to the quality we used to get with the german books. (Comment on the state of the german license withheld). All in all products one IS willing to buy.

As for narrative style: do it. Rules are mostly for the crunch, rolling only for disputed actions (based on expected outcome of the dice) speeds up the game, much.

Just judging from the Dumpshock threads on rules complaints, I'd have to differ. I don't see nearly as many complaints in forums for other rules systems, with the possible exception of the Wizards forums. There's plenty of discussions here on fairly radical house rules on just about every area of the SR4 ruleset.

Rules can also empower players, and help share the narrative control. This leads to what we all want: a fun, shared storytelling experience. Rules do much to determine the narrative style of the game. You can have a system with fairly high tactical crunch *and* a shared narrative.

Basically, the system has flaws. This much is inarguable, but this is where most of the arguments get derailed. I intend to show that the flaws are very serious, and that a re-examination of the core mechanic is needed to fix these flaws. I've never been able to get an argument to stay on track that long, but I hold onto hope.

As there was for SR3. I don't notice any appreciable difference in the complaint level.



That's all fine and dandy, but do you have to do it in every single thread in which you post? Can't you you know, start a thread specifically dedicated to illustrating your point and pursuing your crusade, instead of using all these other threads for that purpose?

That would be too easy.

Open your own thread! I´m curious about your reasoning, as I have seen no evidence to that point so far.

Stop thread crapping in every topic that same argument.
If you want to debate it, open a single topic and keep your discussion there.