i would have to say that my group was off almost the same option as far as 4th edition.
We heard about the that they had planed to do with it before it was released and thought, "i hope this kills off D&D", then we read the core books when they came out and said-" wow theres like two rules in the whole game that are anything near good- the rest is crap". Mind you we didn't think we were going to drop everything to play the new D&D anyway so it was no big deal. There is much better games out there that have more to them and that don't act like crappy video games.

Even if anything you said held any water, it's not like Final Fantasy ever borrowed anything from D&D. Which is good, because about the worst crime I can imagine is one form of media borrowing good ideas from another.

lol

Wow your a clever one. I hope you didn't get that GED out of a cracker jack box. Yes, Final fantasy and D&D are high fantasy styled games/settings, and thats where the comparison ends. D&D has nothing on final fantasy and final fantasy has everything that D&D does not; i highly doubt that the makers of the first Final fantasy borrowed anything from D&D and would ever do so. I believe that were more inspired by great Victorian fantasy authors and Japanese mythology than a dungeon crawling hack and slash game. I believe that you forgot that final fantasy has one thing D&D never has had- story/plot and internal character development, much like a good fantasy novel.

Exactly, attack my intelligence rather than my argument (though admittedly you did you both, so well done).
As to the actual point, Final Fantasy has roots in D&D. The original Final Fantasy had very classic D&D monsters, but I being as how I've only played X I won't dig into the others. I fail to see how a turn based RPG made 12 years after D&D about a hero who must journey into the lair of a dragon to restore peace to the land can't be said to have borrowed from D&D (the game would be Dragon Quest, the game Final Fantasy was based on). Sure it's possible that a decade later a video game with almost the same premise (and the same gameplay) as D&D would not have roots in D&D, but unlikely.
Calling something shit because it borrows from another form of media is fairly silly. Despite the fact that the Metal Gear series has ridiculously long cut scenes doesn't stop it from being one of the best and most popular video games series on the planet.


No. You are quit simply wrong. That is the entire point of D&D- to create those things.

Knock it off, reread the Terms of Service (linked in upper left corner of every page) and play nicely.

Exactly! It's not the ridiculously long cut scenes, it's the atrocious gameplay and ludicrous story.

Don't get me wrong, I don't enjoy the games (after MGS I lost interest, for all of the reasons stated). However, the creator saw how well movies tell stories, and brought that into his gameplay, and it has worked out very well for him.

They both have hitpoints, dungeon crawls centered around the idea of hidden treasure and random and planned encounters, and they both have the tendency to classify characters along the lines of theif/fighter/magic user/cleric etc.

D&D4, like any tabletop RPG, may very well provide more story and character development than FF ever could.

Final Fantasy just railroads you from cut scene to cut scene, with tons of turn-based combat inbetween (and i fully second that mechanically, it is often strikingly similar- but that may be due to the fact that most computer and video RPGs are strongly D&D-oriented, if not outright knockoffs or even tie-ins- the whole genre wouldn't be imaginable without D&D).

D&D, even in 4th ed, at least offers the chance to actually tell a story instead of merely being presented a story by someone else.

Even if the rules revolve almost exclusively around combat (which mainstream RPGs' rules set is not combat heavy, BTW?) it does at least enable you to also be creative on your own outside of twinking your character.
I don't see that in any part of FF.
This does not mean i dislike the FF series (except for part VIII with its tedious combat system), but it will not provide what i get when playing even the most hack&slashish D&D campaign, while D&D provides all a computer RPG minus the graphic engine has to offer.

Which does not mean i'll switch over to D&D4, i've just gotten halfway used to 3.5 and will stick with Pathfinder and used 3x material if i want to run a D&D campaign.

I've thought up cooler monsters than FF has ever shown.


And I don't really care. Nobody has to switch over to a new game. But when you start talking shit about a game, and refuse to play it because it is new, that is a problem. As part of the "New Edition" gaming generation I've grown up gaming with all the elements that 4e has drawn from, and it is the nearly the perfect game for me because it includes everything I enjoy. I grew up when computer and video games were are fact of life, and so I love to see that on the tabletop. I've always had miniatures infinitely accessible thanks to a healthy industry and the internet, so I love to to have that in my RGPs. I grew up with Magic, and Pokemon ruled my playground, so any card game features (and so far I see none in 4e) are familiar to me.

The "New Edition" gaming culture is important because older games (and I'll keep the D&D theme here because it is easy), like AD&D, have nothing to give me. Sure it is an RPG, but it comes from the cheesy fantasy of the 80's, I'm not a fan of that- my generation's fantasy is Diablo, and The Song of Ice and Fire. All the players of AD&D are not part of my generation- I'd be the baby at the table, and we all know gamers love to play the knowledgeable elder (often to the point of annoyance). Without new editions that the new gamers can relate to and find enticing, the hobby would die.

Does that include Ultros?

I mostly agree on the rest though, even though i grew up on He-Man and Transformers instead of Magic and Pôkemon (and wouldn't want to change that, even though it would make me ten years younger) and treasure my old Planes Of Chaos box set, my gonzo first ed TDE adventures, the Runequest 2 creatures book and Shadowbeat.

Do we need GitS influences in SR to keep the game alive?
Well, probably yes.
And i don't mind playing in a campaign with cyborgs, technomancers and furries instead of poodle-haired elven deckers.
As long as there's enough mohawks, of course.

Dying Earth RPG. There are combat rules, but they have the same complexity as social rules and they are used a lot less. If you get in a combat situation it means that something has gone very bad. Combat is dangerous and most of the time there are safer ways around (such as running away, persuading the monster that you're not that good to eat or settling that matter with a card game), so why bother fighting?
But Dying Earth might not be a "mainstream RPG".

The Ghost in the Shell comic started in 1991 - in the time of SR1. It's not exactly "new edition", in my opinion.

The Ghost in the Shell came out at a time that meant once all those kids who had grown up with that (we start watching TV younger than we do roleplaying) come into the age to start roleplaying right about when SR4 came out. So one could argue GitS is a New Edition thing (not that gamers of the old school can't enjoy it).

GitS, especially the TV show is definitely new edition. AR, cyber brains, e-ghosts etc. Hell there are more than a few threads with people using 4th edition to put together all the cool crap from that show that wasn't fully imagined in previous editions.

SR4 is vastly more appealing to me than SR3 ever was, its better steamlined, etc etc.. so all in all it was a good "new" edition..

Now we take white wolfs World of Darkness (Im putting all their games into the WoD.. since they all interact more or less) Their WoD 1.0 I LOVED, I bought most stuff that had vampire written on it =) Then when WoD 2.0 came out, they scrapped the whole meta plot and began a new.. BLAND meta plot, and rewrote the rules, and not testing them properly (to many inconsitencys imho) so I stopped giving white wolf my money..

Then we have a swedish "realistic" fantasy RPG called EON, its on its 3rd generation atm, but the company is small and soley employ freelance writers, so the release rate of new books isnt that fast.. What they do instead is that they revisit the main rules every few years, but all the sourcebooks etc from the previous editions are still compatible with the new editions, they do minor tweaks here and there, fix typos, fix broken rules, steamline the stuff that takes to long, alot of stuff.. and it WORKS.. there is little or no power creep, there are very very few instances where older stuff is not compatible with new stuff since the addon books does not add new rules most of the time, its mearly settings, histocical information, and some adventures. And the world is fairly consistant, tho they need to revisit the geographica mundana and fix the population numbers, standing army numbers because generally the population is WAY to low for a country that size, and the army is generally WAY to big for a country of that size or even larger when you look at them in a histocial context..

That's funny. I loved WoD 1.0, and I had a bunch of books. And then NWoD came out, and I love every single thing about it. The rules are more streamlined and easy, and the game itself is the horror game old WoD wished it could have been- new Werewolf is actually scarey. Where you see the meta-plot as bland, I see it as far less restrictive (Argh! I'm a werewolf, all vampires are of the wyrm! Rargh! Kill all vampires no matter what, no questions asked!), far more interesting (again, the vampire sects are what the Camarilla and Sabbat should have looked like if they had been written with any talent), and it has many more possibilities (plus, Prometheus is awesome).

I liked the old Changeling a lot better. It was the happiest place in the world of darkness. The new ones just all about being sad and an outcast.

I'll admit I haven't seen the new Changeling, but I heard it was basically Neil Gaiman: The Roleplaying Game (or more to the point, that's what I wanted), which is fairly awesome.

"Neil Gaiman: The Roleplaying Game" was sadly banned in this country because the vast quantities of hallucinagenic drugs that came with it are illegal here.

a couple of comments here.

i find that cpv3 stands on its own ok, but when viewed as a continuation of cp2020, its somewhat over the top...

the living city that sprawls most of california intrigues me. same with the fraction and their differing approach to tech (even tho i have a hard time wrapping my head around the social structures of some of them. but most seem to have a core of good old fashion honor).

the initial final fantasy games on NES had a very similar spell mechanic to d&d. you had different level spells, and could cast a number of spells pr level before having to rest (more like the d&d3 sorceror then the classical wizard, tho).

beyond that i seem to never really care if a system changes. im kinda "funny" that way. each editions system gets to stand on its own feet.

but i agree that d&d4 looks more like a mmorpg in paper form then the toyboxes that have been, to me at least, a trait that differs paper rpgs from just about any other kind of game.

Having played a couple of sessions of D&D4E and reading interviews with the Wizards of the Coast developers, 4th edition was specially designed to incorporate miniatures into the game play. I don't think it's fair to compare 4th Ed. to MMORPGs (as five or six people sitting around a table rolling dice isn't exactly massive) but RPGs that incorporate visual imagery into the game (be that through physical models, simple computer generated maps, etc.) is the future of non-LARP RPGs. The line between tabletop and pure RP games is becoming ever blurrier.

What's the easiest way to get people who like Hero Clix or Star Wars minis into D&D? Incorporate the Hero Clix into D&D. And, honestly, as a GM, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Letting the minis keep track of player positions and objects and focusing more on story and other elements makes for a more enjoyable gaming experience for me. I have a powerful imagination but I also like having something tangible to touch and "act" with to keep all the players on the same page.

I don't think its the inclusion of minis that is the reason why D&D4th is being called a Table top MMO. In fact, 3rd edition was designed with chainmail in mind. Many games out there have some design element in them where the use of minis make combat situations more easy to show movement and tactics, as well as in game effects.

Using "squares" instead of "feet" for movement doesn't make a game any more tabletop.

In those two or three preview publications that came out before D&D 4th ed.'s release, the lead developer was quoted as saying the game mechanics were being specifically redesigned for the inclusion of minis.

Depends on the RPG system. But all RPGs have some form of loophole/flaw that people who are very dedicated/obsessed with the game can easily find. And even small problems can be blown out of proportion.

i see the mmo aspect in the use of class specific powers, much like how you have a set of special attacks on the bar at the edge of the screen while playing a mmo. that and nearly all powers having a damage or healing effect, with secondary effects.

they basically tossed most of the utility/non-combat spells from earlier editions, for one thing...

As opposed to how in 3.5 classes didn't have specific powers like Heal Minor Wounds, or Cleave.


To save for the book where they matter. Most people don't need utility spells for their epic wizards who forge deep into dungeons in order to slay mythical and terrible beasts. However, some want them. They are an extra, and I shouldn't have to pay the page space for them.

That's interesting, I found that most players don't need dozens of variations on the same theme of 'hurt things' or 'heal things', but benefit significantly from a wide variety of unusual abilities while role-playing, exploring or interacting within a massive fantasy world.

I find the opposite. It's Dungeons and Dragons, not Craftmaking and Peasantry. D&D is the go-to game if you want fantasy sword-n-sorcery action. However... Martial Power is releasing in November. According to an interview on The Tome podcast, Arcane Power is coming up soon. All the utility/non-combat powers that were tossed from 3.5 will be included in those products. Adventurer's Vault should be out now or soon which is the master equipment guidebook. And though I play in the Eberron campaign setting, the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide is mighty tempting.

I'd have to agree...while having a secondary craft is fun here and there, as well as adding a little bit to your background, the meat of DnD is the sword and sorcery. Granted, it does depend on your group...mine for instance, is a bunch of late 20s, early 30s, getting together after work once every other week. We could care less about someone's pottery skill or if they know how to blacksmith a sword...we want to hangout, roll some dice, bash the monsters, get loot and level...all while filling in the gaps of stuff that's been going on with each of us.

Keeping that stuff modular and in different books is better, cause if we don't care about that stuff, we haven't paid for a bunch of pages that we'd never even read.

And from everything I gather (I haven't actually played pre 3rd ed), AD&D and 1st ed were even more about just killing things for loot and XP, making the 4e feel more akin to original D&D. Not that I'm trying to make this an edition war, just that it seems to me WotC attempted (and succeeded) to make a game that harkens back to the old days of D&D while making it accessible and engaging to new gamers.

If you want more crafting and character development, then ren fairs and LARPing may be a better fit... That's usually what my thoughts boil down to. I mean, yeah, sometimes I can understand wanting to have a character be "different" than the 1,000 other characters you had, but really, are you really going to get along with your group if you are always monopolizing the GMs time because you want to craft something or make some money performing in town square?

I think that is fine if you do it outside the game, like on a forum or whatever, but to force that down everyone's throat? I'll pass.

Interesting observation, Reg06...granted, I still think WotC planned to mimic the popular trends in MMOs and focused on seriously differentiating class roles while maintaining balance throughout every aspect of the game. I think the fact that the core books focus mainly on the combat rules is just a side effect.

I guess that depends on the Gm's style. If the GM is the type to stretch that sort of thing out and have you role play the whole thing then yes that is unfair to the other players. However, if its justt he roll of the dice and then back to the rest of you while the bard is in the square singing, then its no big deal.
For instance. My monday GM allows us magic users to learn spells by studying books at the mage's guild- for a price. The amount of roleplaying is usually me asking a NPC member of the guild if they have the book i a looking for and how much, plus whatever else we might say to each other. After that the character sits in a chair to read and i roll some dice to see how well i do. If i roll well enough i get news spells; if i don't roll well then i wasted my time. Either way My character will be sitting there for most of the day and the GM moves on to the other characters. So really i am not taking up anyones "GM" time. If you can't enjoy the game in all situations then you should reevaluate the reason why you play at all.

I completely agree with this. And I think it is a good thing. There's a reason WoW has 10 million players, and some of their ideas must be some very good ones.


So since I am not entertainted when my character who I just spent 10 straight months working on fumbles and falls to his death crossing a rickety bridge in a non-combat situation I should play better or not at all? No. I don't have to enjoy spending time whittling a rose out of wood when I could be doing something awesome, like sliding down a bannister on a shield while cutting down droves of orcs with my +3 flaming broadsword.
By your own admission crafting doesn't need to take up time, so why waste page space with something that is just tiny sliver of gametime? Not that your playstyle is wrong, but 4e has (briefly) covered background skills like that, and they aren't supposed to take up character points. I'm sure we will get crafting skills and the like in the near future, but a basic roleplaying game for dungeon delving and monster slaying does not need rules for stitching your own armor.

I didn't say anything about crafting or character development. I said 'role-playing', which is a pretty broad brush. For instance, I far prefer exploration and social interactions over combat, neither of which are either crafting or character development. I enjoy puzzle solving. That's why I thought Planescape Torment and Baldur's Gate were both fantastic games, even though they're both technically D&D. I'm going to assume you're unfamiliar with this concept, and not just a rude person.

YEs, if fumbling causes you to stop having fun then Yes you should reevaluate why you play.

I will point out that by your own omission the the reason why you play is less about the roll playing and more about the Slaying of "Orcs" hense why such character flavor as crafting skills are not important. Which is also why WOW (or MMOs in general) work really well, because thats what most non-rpers are interested in doing.

And you shouldn't need rules for exploration and social interactions. Exploration is covered very well by the Spot and Knowledge skills, and by your GM's ability to describe thing (player curiosity is also important). And social interaction should not need dice. If you want to talk to an NPC, do so. We need extensive rules for combat because it is dynamic, uncontrollable, and most importantly, we can't do it ourselves sitting around a table. Social interaction is one of the very few in game things we can do as players at the table. 4e gave us the basics of what we need to play, if for some strange reason you can't talk without using stats and dice that is not the game's fault.


No. I don't cry every time I get a bad roll. However it cannot be 100% fun 100% of the time, there are bound to be things that I don't like that much. Like losing 10 months of work to a sheer dumb luck (not that this actually happened, it's just a hypothetical situation). But I continue playing because RPing is loads of fun, even if (or maybe sometimes because) things go poorly.


Do you in fact mean "roll" playing? Because that part doesn't concern me, I have Warhammer to satisfy my number crunching needs. But yes, I'd rather go out as a swashbuckling warrior and gut me some orcs than sit around the campfire making arrows. Maybe the part where I fail is not understanding why the Dread Pirate Roberts has any less character flavor or role playing potential than that guy from that one movie who makes shit (hint; the Dread Pirate Roberts is actually an interesting character).

I'm pretty sure that the dread pirate Roberts could do many "Craft"or "roleplaying" based skills (if he was a character)
He would have to since he was a Captain of a ship- so he would of had to learn basic ship maintenance, plus things to keep the ship floating and heading on the correct course. Sure you tend to hire people to do these things but what happens if they die or are sick? Your screwed then.

Fun is fun, it doesn't usually get broken down into a percentage like a misused RPG stat. Its either fun or not. Stop being a stickler. If you lose your fun because of fumbles and such then you should play a diceless game, of which there are a few really good ones; unless you one of those," Oh, i can't do that cause i have all these dice- cookie jars full of them, that i cannot do without".

I do agree that character interaction is up to the players and GM. However, even if there are not rules for said interaction there should be a reward for doing so than anything that the player would personally take away from it. 4e has NO reward system (xp) for this type of situation. And yes i have read the whole core book. They have a non-combat xp reward system but from what i read its not a roleplaying character interaction through words based xp, but more of an physical action based reward system. Like using a skill that has nothing to do with combat- like pick locks. But then again thats only a fraction of whats wrong with the system.

Yes, but the point is he didn't. Those skills are all background skills (and I don't mean they are part of his backstory, I mean they happen off screen) and had no effect on the storyline, whatsoever. And the character is no less dynamic, interesting, or characterful (that's where I ran out of words) for it.


Did you even listen to what I said? The dice rolls aren't important. What is important is losing a character that I've invested alot of time and effort in, that is not fun no matter which way you spin it. And to try to steer this away from a flame war (and don't get me wrong, I actually had to proofread this post because I knew I was close to it), I own the one fist sized bag of dice. If it helps, my first systems were White Wolf games, so non-combat skills are dear to my heart, and background attributes are second nature (but I don't look for that in a game whose reward system is based on killing things).


This I will let you have, for the most part. There is brief mention of giving rewards such as deeds and nobility to players, things that can't be measure in XP or gold, and it alludes to the fact that good RP is worth rewarding, but it is very brief (to be fair, this is D&D, where pretty much the only way to become anything is to kill alot of stuff). But what you said here is fine, I don't mind one bit if you hate on the game because it's play style doesn't fit yours. I only mind if you complain that it isn't something it isn't.

*raises hand*

I like logistics in my games.

That's why I was completely pumped and spent many hours playing Wilderness: A Survival Adventure.

According to MobyGames,

First off, I wasn't directing my post at anyone in particular...

But I think you hold my point pretty well in your own preferences. Social interactions, can all be made by a good GM. You don't need dice to tell you that, or a bunch of tables or rules. Although in DnD, you could set up non-combat encounters if you need to. And puzzle solving...again, is just a good GM giving you a good obstacle to spend your time on.

I must just be rude then, as I'm not unfamiliar with these concepts.

I think at this point you're ignoring things to make your point. This addresses deek as well, although less so.

Firstly, both of you have stated it should all be handled diceless, and can be done by a good GM.

On the one hand, diceless means that the GM basically has to handle a lot more, and oftentimes results in something similar to what you get when you do diceless combat; the players don't like the result and claim it's unfair. Social interactions are every bit as complex and dynamic as combat, perhaps even moreso because there is so much more background involved. And because not every GM is good, and not every player is well-spoken, being able to turn that into something more abstract is a very useful tool. Exploration falls into a similar vein. A city cannot be summed up into a series of Spot and knowledge skills, or if it can, it's not a very convincing city (or it's an absolutely FANTASTIC GM). We buy sourcebooks to help us design and populate our cities, to put traps and culture into it, plot hooks and schemes. Part of why I love Shadowrun is because I feel like I really know Seattle. Reading the books, I can imagine it and understand it. Even as a bad GM, I can portray a convincing city, with realistic characters and proper reactions, because of what the Shadowrun system provides (and in truth, I rely far more on that in my games than combat). I make corporate enclaves which are exciting and interesting because I have books to help me.

On the other hand, you're completely ignoring all of the tools a character collects in order to do whatever he's doing better. That was the start of this whole sub-thread anyway, the loss of utility spells. If you were to go camping, you'd probably have an inventory of things you consider essential, and things you think make you a better camper by virtue of your having them. If you're going to sneak into a building, you're going to want special tools, abilities and skills to help you do that, and most likely the majority of them are not really combat-related. As a great example, in SR, my favorite spell is probably suggestion, but it's completely useless in combat compated to the other things I'd have in my arsenal. To say you don't need books to support this is, well, it's like saying you don't need books for combat either. It's only marginally true.

Excellent point nezumi. I can very well see that social interactions are dynamic like combat, I've just see too many players/DM's say "I seduce/intimidate/coerce/diplomacize him/her/it" "okay, let's see your roll" that I hate seeing players not using their roleplaying skills (on the flipside, my two regular groups have been good enough that when we did roll dice for social interactions it was just icing on the cake and I never really viewed it as needed in those situations, because it always was just an addition to an already good, or bad, speech).
An the utility spells, I can see your point. As much as I have loved utility spells in the past, I don't miss them. Doing away with a good portion of them means the Wizard isn't the go to guy for everything (seriously, the Fighter's player probably enjoys being the one who lifts the portcullis instead of watching the Mage Hand do it, the Ranger probably enjoys hunting instead of chowing down on some magic berries etc...). But I do think there are enough utility powers (and all classes have utility powers now), pretty much all of which are good (and at least applicable outside of combat. Keep in mind the power system rules are built around the combat system, so it may at first seem like they are all combat specific) to satisfy players. And like I have said (and boy I hope I'm not wrong), this is just the first book. Give WotC time to expand on the basic kill things and loot things ruleset.

Getting down to the root of what I was trying to say...I like the way they kept them crafting, professions and utility functions outside of the core book. I have no problem with WotC publishing a million and one types of those books outside the core rules for anyone that wants to be spoonfed that type of information for their own games. Enjoy.

And I never said that I wanted to handle it all diceless. I think a lot of it can be done without dice, and I do agree with you that abstracting is certainly a lot easier to handle social type encounters...but you don't write books that cater to the 5% that truly delve into the complexities of social interaction...do you?

Honestly, the GM has to handle more whether your book gives you 200 pages of social rules or you handle it just as roleplaying. I suppose, as a GM, I'm just more used to creating my own setting or stocking known areas with my own sorts of personalities. And when it comes down to chance, I have a fairly good and consistent feel for how I will have my players roll it. I really don't need a ton of rules bogging me down telling me how I should play my game at my table.

And plus, what if your GM doesn't like the rules? Are you, as the player, going to sit there are argue with him all night about them and ruin everyone's game?

Doesn't Diplomacy cover the social skill rolls in 4th ed?

Hehe...for some people, they need to roll 30 times and 6 different skills to feel "social" encounters are worth it/accurate...

Honestly, I am good either way. 4th edition allows quite an elaborate web of skills to be used for non-combat encounters, if the DM wants to take the time to build it out. Multiple skills, DCs and other factors combine to quite a elaborate way of getting what you want.

Or, you could simply roll a single die, succeed or fail.

Or, you could just roleplay with your DM.

Or, you could wait for a 200 page book WotC published that gives you a system to use for all the "non-adventuring" tasks your character wants to take.

Or, you could create your own.

...

This list could go on and on:)

I wasn't going to say anything, as I think deek has his own method of gaming and really likes that method, and I think that's fine. However, this one line kept sticking in my craw.

Since we all play SR, let's take a moment and look at the shadowrun books which are published and which do NOT focus on combat (in other words, focus on social and cultural structures, non-combat challenges, etc.) I won't include mission books, since those go both ways.

Primarily combat/mission oriented books
Matrix books (1, 2, 3 and 4)
Rigging books (1, 2, 3 and 4)
Magic books (1, 2, 3 and 4)
Cyberware books (1, 2, 3 and 4)
Gun books (1,2, 3 and 4)


Primarily world-building/social/everything else books (copied from wiki)
Character Dossier (pending 4th edition book)
1st Sprawl Sites
1st Paranormal Animals of North America
1st Shadowbeat
7112 2nd Paranormal Animals of Europe
7113 2nd Corporate Shadowfiles
7115 2nd Lone Star
7116 2nd Prime Runners
7117 2nd Bug City
7118 2nd Corporate Security Handbook
7119 2nd Cybertechnology
7120 2nd Awakenings
7121 2nd Threats
7122 2nd Portfolio of a Dragon: Dunkelzahn's Secrets
7123 2nd Underworld Sourcebook
7124 2nd Cyberpirates
7125 3rd Corporate Download
7208 2nd The Neo-Anarchists Guide to Real Life
7219 3rd Target: Matrix
10650 3rd Year of the Comet
10651 3rd Target: Awakened Lands
10652 3rd Threats 2
10653 3rd Target: Wastelands
10654 3rd Wake of the Comet
10665 3rd Survival of the Fittest
10666 3rd Dragons of the Sixth World
10667 3rd Sprawl Survival Guide
10673 3rd The Shadowrun Character Dossier
25003 3rd Mr. Johnson's Little Black Book
25006 3rd Loose Alliances
25014 3rd System Failure
26301 4th Emergence
26302 4th Ghost Cartels
7201 Seattle Sourcebook
7202 Native American Nations Volume One
7203 London
7204 Germany Sourcebook
7206 Neo-Anarchists Guide to North America
7207 Native American Nations Volume Two
7209 California Free State
7210 Tir Tairngire
7211 Tir na nOg (Ireland)
7212 Denver: The City of Shadows
7213 Aztlan (Mexico)
7214 Target: UCAS
7215 Target: Smugglers Havens
7216, 10657 & 25009 New Seattle
10655 & 25015 Shadows of North America
25002 Shadows of Europe
25007 Shadows of Asia
25011 Shadows of Latin America
26005 Runner Havens
26201 Corporate Enclaves
26202 Feral Cities


Mix
Main manuals (1, 2, 3 and 4)
Companion books (2, 3 and 4)
SOTA 63, 64



Some of those (Shadowbeat, dossier books, dragons of the sixth world, etc.) are almost exclusively about social interactions or work related to that social interactions.

Not that I disagree with your examples but the D&D core book is the engine from which all subsequent rules mechanics and campaign settings are and will be built around. And the core of D&D (and Shadowrun) is combat. Walking a maze/problem solving comes in a close second for D&D. It's what it's always been. I agree that social mechanics are important. I wish there was a way to better integrate them into play using dice rolls but it seems nearly impossible to do so in a way that uses statistics to maneuver or fail through social confrontations. Look at the BBB; only three pages of 350 are dedicated to social skills.

The majority of D&D 3rd/3.5 Edition books were an even mix between campaign setting modules and books on tweaking/getting the most out of classes (The Complete Divine, The Complete Fighter, etc). Shadowrun doesn't work on a class system (anymore) so once you have your five rule books (and you really only need the BBB to play, everything else is optional) that opens up setting and plot development. It's easier to write a setting than come up with solid rules mechanics so naturally there will be more of those kinds of books published.

@nezumi

I wasn't talking about SR...this thread started about current day gaming culture and the similarity between MMOs and the "new edition"... of DnD! Then there were a couple complaints about how the core DnD books didn't have enough non-combat powers and skills. That there were no secondary skills or crafting professions people could build into their characters.

You're taking my 5% comment out of context and debating something no one else was talking about. I'd continue to stand behind what I say about social rules and guidelines in the SR realm. As Wesley Street just pointed out, there are only 3 pages devoted to social skills, and what, a total of 3 or 4 social skills anyways?

Now I am not saying there is not a ton of plot and setting books...just that there are not a ton of pages devoted to how to "roll out" social encounters. So, take DnD or SR...the ruleset is very basic on how to roll for that sort of thing...social interactions with an NPC. And I think that any books or supplements written strictly to expand those types of rules, are a waste. But, if people will buy them and the company can make some money off of it, more power to them...all I ask for is a choice not to buy it.

I don't think books with rules for social encounters would be a waste. I would snatch them up in a heartbeat. I can only kill so many monsters before I want to do something else.