Hey its simple:

-If you dont like IEs or dragons dont have them in your game.
-If you think they have too much influence dial that back to your liking.
-If you think their role is too small atm increase it.
-If you like how it is atm leave it be.

No1 forces people to have these elements in their game. No1 forces people to use adventure or campain books like: Year of the comet, or Survial of the fittest. If you dont like where they are going with those books.... hey then dont use them. But if some like to have these in their game then this ED plot is good news. I dont see why its such a big deal for some people just to ignore it if they dont like it and let those that like it have fun with it?

Oh and btw, yes dragons and IEs are powerful, but their involvement in major storyline and worldshaping events have been minimal compared to the megas in the last many years in shadowrun books. So how about calming down about this, and see where they are going with this? If you dont like the result due to different reason then ignore the books and let the people that like these forces have fun with the upcoming books. Im personally looking forward to seeing old friends like Harlequin again, and dwelling into the ED past, but hey thats just me.

You dont like it fine, no1 is forcing you to have these elements in your game.

I think you should check who exactly tries to force their views on others. I am advocating to keep the ED links on a vague, rumor level, so everyone can use them as much or little as they want, with as little rewriting needed as possible. Others seem to take issues with this, which I can't help but seeing as wanting them hard coded into the setting as plot drivers on a level on par with the height of 2E and early 3E just so they don't have to adjust anything.

Threats I and II did it fine - easy to use, enlarge or reduce plots and groups that didn't force anyone to rewrite stuff to the degree other unwanted plots did. The Ordo Maximus is probably the best example of how one should treat such a bunch of immortal powerful mages.

One thing I don't like in the "Fourth to Sixth world" metaplot is the inclusion of magic in the fifth world and IE meddlings in the fifth world history. We're not playing Vampire/Nephilim, everything strange or exceptional that happened in history doesn't have to be explained by magic or "superior" beings. And don't get me started on conspiracies...

In my games, magic in the fifth world was exactly what magic today is: bullshit. Templars had no magic, old "magic books" and Voynich Manuscripts were scams and so on. At best, there could have been some traditions with references to fourth world's magic and maybe some might have been written down somewhere, probably with little to do with the original content.

That doesn't mean that all the old "magic books" are worthless but they aren't any better than, say, children's drawing (which some shamans could probably see as spell formulas).

Any time anyone ever complains about aspects of a game they don't like, this argument will invariably be raised: if you don't like it, don't include it in your game.

That's all well and good, but players come to a game with expectations. If there is a metaplot, there will be people who expect any game that is run for them to adhere to it. This poses an interesting dilemma if a player with this attitude is at the same table as me, doesn't it?

If there is to be a metaplot, it is in the best interests of the people playing the game - and, by extension, the ones making the game - that the metaplot be acceptable to the vast majority of players. This means several things, but foremost among them is that you can't please the majority if you don't know what the majority wants. This means that people expressing their opinions is of paramount importance to ensuring that a canny game company can make sure they do things right, or as right as they can (you can't please everybody).

On top of that, several people in this thread posited questions in an attempt to either understand or ridicule their opposition. I feel compelled, as the proud owner of an opinion, to answer the former to sate their curiosity, and the latter to dispel their arrogance. I expressed that opinion for their benefit; they drew a reply from me with their words. Telling me, as others have already told others in this thread, to 'like it or leave it' isn't really conducive to discussion, especially when I adressed that particular line of reasoning in a prior post.

And yes, I am aware that the writers have shifted the focus back to the corps in recent years, and, as evidenced by AH's post upthread, are likely to continue that trend. Personally, I'm glad of that. I also addressed this in my last post.

I guess I'm just confused as to what exactly you were trying to add to the discussion, these points have already been discussed. I'm going to assume that you probably haven't read the whole thread (and I can't blame you for that). If that's the case, I hope this post brings you somewhat up to speed on the discussion so far. =)

[princess bride]

I don't think that sentence means what you think it means.

[/princess bride]

In SR, one of those expectations is IE's/GD's. It's part of the system and has been since day one.

What torques people off, apparently, is that these beings are unkillable. Which frankly I think should be the case.

People complain about them being Mary Sue and wanky but in my experience the sort of game where a GM might allow players to take on an NPC like this and win is just as made of wank, it's just a different sort.

For starters, killable?

Is that the only metric of victory you can come up with. Shame on you. Has nobody read Harlequin?

[edit] I've not read any SR fiction since about 1993 and don't intend to. I can see why some of the Leonardo arc might be a bit irritating but it isn't canon so I'm happy ignoring it. That's not a criticism of IE's/GD's just of those particular authors. There's always one....

Leonardo is canon, mentioned on p. 31 BBB. And such stuff, IE's being central to a corp plot, is what I dread.

Hardly. That's the least annoying thing about them.

The fact that you can't seem to grasp the actual complaint despite numerous posts explaining exactly why people dislike them says far more about you than it does them or their complaints.

It does say claiming, it doesn't say DaVinci and it doesn't reiterate any of the plot of the books.

Why is that something to dread? Why is Lofwyr fine but Leonardo isn't?

Why do people ignore the meat of your argument and focus on one pathetic little point?

Why can I not be bothered to go cut the grass?

NPCs of the Ultimate rating were a general rule.

Ok, Crizh, once again:

It's one thing to have a game with IEs in the background, next to vampire cabals, insect spirit hives, shadow spirits, cults, policlubs, megacorps, countries, etc., and most of the information being given as rumors and options.

It's another thing to have game info rely on them to the degree of what we had in the past, with references popping up all over the place. That mans a lot more work to reduce their impact than if they were on the level of say the ordo maximus.

In other words, it's about retaining Shadowrun's flexibility and offering options, and not covering a big part of the game fluff with the IE sauce. Shadowrun should be a buffet with easy to pick choices, not a menu where you have to scrape off one sauce from all courses, dropping half the meal in the process, just so you can stomach it.

In a nutshell, people are asking to preserve their flavor among Shadowrun's options, without having to rewrite half the book.

Is that too much to be asked? Is it too much to keep IEs on a level akin to other threats, without making them more prominent than everything else?

As far as "unkillable" goes, for not so few, a game where there is a clearly unkillable NPC running the show is no fun. Lowfyr would be unacceptable as well if he was written like "no matter what happens, where Lofwyr flies to, and how he acts, the PCs won't ever be able to kill him". As he is written he doesn't go hiring Shadowrunners in person in an adventure, he remains in the background, pulling strings like any other CEO or leader of a nation. That's quite a difference from "In your face" Harlequin.

Don't like the story of Shadowrun? Play Cyberpunk.


But that was RAW.

You know, in the game I am in...the PCs are being used as pawns by Ryumo(we think...it might be teh Empress or the Emperor though) in fighting against a subtle powerplay being made by Lofwyr(Again..we think...we know it is Saeder-Krupp showing up all over the place...could be someone trying to frame Lofwyr to make Ryumo do something, though....My bet: the Empress is actually making a powerplay of her own...)

Now, thing is...our GM is kind of machiavellan in style, so what we think we see is rarely, if ever, what is actually going on...We know we are pawns...just, well, not who we are pawns of. But, basicly, here is the thing to me: In shadowrun, it does not matter who it is, you are pawns for someone else. You are deniable, disposable assets. You could be hired tomorrow to do a job that the Johnson knows is going to get you killed...but that is OK, because another team has been hired to do the REAL job, and you are just a diversion. Now, when you do a job that involves an Immortal Elf or a Dragon(especially a Great Dragon) things tend to get more interesting, and payment sometimes becomes.....interesting(I still remember one run I was in, where in addition to the money, we were given 4 jade fingers and a tea cup by our Elf J. Was it an immortal elf? Maybe, maybe not...no way to really know..)

Of course, thinking on it...Immortal Elves only become an issue if you know about them OOCly. Then you look for them everywhere. I wonder if, perhaps, the reason people see them and GD lurking behind every corner is...we expect it, and so TRY to find them lurking behind every corner? I know two players in my group do not know anything about Immortal Elves, and so some of the subtle things my GM might do(as listed above) might go over their heads. Then again, my GM is the kind of person to delight in throwing red herrings all around...so, we never really know excatly what is going on until the final scene...(And sometimes, not even then!)

Shadowrun is much more then IEs and GDs. It has room for a lot of playstyles, and doesn't need to be locked into one single plot/flavor.

Yes, WAY more than that. So it isn´t locked, and the problem does not exist. The thread is on what page now?

Then what's your problem, again?

I thought, this thread was about the fear of SR becoming all about The League of Superpowered UberElves™ vs. the Horrors in the metaplot again.
Come to think of it, I trust Peter to not let it degenerate like that.

As was pointed out countless times in this thread, the problem is that there are not enough metaplots for people who don't like the IE aspect of Shadowrun. If you want to play any campaign setting in SR, the IE Superdragon plot in SR is forced on you. They couls have easily left it out in RA:S, but even that had IEs.

What I want is Cyberpunk with Fantasy, not Fantasy with Cyberpunk. It's like Beer + X. X is alright but Beer comes first.

As was posted - I don't want to lose that diversity.

That Shadowrun could again be reduced to "IE and GD" with regards to metaplot. And that would be a real shame. I know you don't really care, blindly following canon, but others actually like the current diversity, and don't want to lose it.

Given the material available, that's pretty much impossible anyway.

You seem to have missed most of the metaplots, then.

Given the metaplots still running, that would be pretty hard, don't you think?

Your knowledge is intriguing - just, tell me: if said diversity is part of the canon, wouldn't that make me a follower, too?

Not really. Just as you can write out all IEs, you can write them into everything. So, if the Devs want to, they can post IEs all over the place.

Greatest argument ever.

Just that wouldn't affect the diversity in play, at all.

The last 10 or so metaplots I noticed either had IEs or Superdragons in them, or another annoying magic gimmick that made all regular human accomplishment obsolete. Would you kindly point me to the campaigns of the recent past that did not involve a buttload of Fantasy gimmicks as the main plot device?

Just curious - could you please point those out?

Are we talking about campaigns or metaplots?

I think these sum it up my general attitude better than anything I could say (without ranting that is).

God NPCs
God NPCs II

That said, there are too damn many IEs and GDs alive and well for my tastes (hint, trimming the herd would be nice). Like Gast said "What I want is Cyberpunk with Fantasy, not Fantasy with Cyberpunk. It's like Beer + X. X is alright but Beer comes first." - I agree totally. In order to work as a setting IMO the three factors of Man, Magic, and Machine have to be in balance, with no one theme overwhelming the others. SR2 got lost in the Magic end. SR3 (and so far 4 to some degree) got lost in the Machine end. Both iterations forgot the Man end that made 1st edition great despite it's crap mechanics. I have faith that Synner will direct SR4 in a good way and the upcoming Ghost Cartels business strikes me so far as very Man oriented, but I hope that the balance that SR4 had before Emergence doesn't get too far lost.



I would like to point out that I'm rather disgusted by the amount of TOS violations (namely flaming and baiting) I've seen in the course of this thread.



I moderated for a while on a board that did exactly that. It's not a good idea - the venom leaks out and poisons the "decent" parts of the board.

Well, at least Emergence has no trace of invulnerable IE+GD superpower badasses in it, which marks part of the difference between ye ole SR and SR4 for me.

Apart from that, I think the apparent lack of magic in the current timeframe stems from the fact that there has been a lack of campaign books at all because the devs decided to push out all the rules addons first.

You are all against powerfull immortal elves running plots to control everything, with a far better powerfull demons running plots to control everything

But the Devs could put them in! Just to bitch-slap the ED-haters in the face! Oh noes!

Technically, Leonardo is involved in every matrix plot following his deal with Renraku, since his work apparently - see BBB - was crucial for the technological advances in that sector...

Yeah, just like Alan Turing and Steve Jobs are involved with every matrix plot....

I said technically. That the devs had to have such matrix tech advancements come from Leonardo, and not from a mortal programmer is part of what I consider the over-proliferation of IEs in SR. The "elves are better at evrything, smithing, magic, fighting" should be buried with the "Complete Book of Elves", no ported over into SR.

I'm just boggled sometimes by people who want there game to have a different metaplot then the one established for SR. Umm just change it, its your game if you want aliens or chthulu spirits behind everything or nothing behind every random act so be it. But why so rabid against the people who make the game. For me its like saying I like my Mac & Cheese without the cheese because it makes the noodles sticky. I always run SR as canon and tweaked were I needed too and my players have fond memories of there interactions with IE's and other powerful entities. Maybe thats just a testament to my running style or maybe gods forbid folks are really just blowing the issue way out of proportion. I say buy what supplements you feel fit your play style keep your game your own and for fucks sake HAVE SOME FUN!

I can't continue to read such stupid things without saying something. While you make very good points, that's the only point that is so useless.

Do you really need to see a Harlequin with: str:9 Qui:12 Cha: 11 ..... 200 karma points, list of 50 spells, blabla.

So what? If your GM you can't decide stats for them if your PC wants them dead (and tries to kill them).

If at the end of Harlequin, it was written: "Harlequinn will be used later on in the story, he's not supposed to die" instead of "He's an uber-NPC, you can't kill him".


Asking for ways to kill them is pointless. Most of non-power gamers simply don't want to play a campaign where they're going to die.


By the way, I'd like some stats for the current president of UCAS. They're going to fight him as a boss.

O_o


yeahhh yeahhh give me tactical nukes stats, to see that my high armored high stamina NPC survive to it....

There's a difference between lacking stats for someone - which we can make up, if they weren't, as was usual back then, given stats in the form of "use the X Archetype from the main book" - and writing "unkillable" into an adventure. The words "He is not supposed to die" alone pretty much ruin an adventure for me (and, judging from lots of threads in other forums, for a number of other people as well). Some people like railroaded "you can't do anything other than what I want here" adventures, but many dislike this.

As I've written before, I do indeed tweak the setting and leave the stuff out I don't like. Still, I feel the need to express that I don't want the upcoming anniversary arc shoving immortal all-powerful beings with pointy ears and who are completely obsessed with themselves into every freaking plot as it has occured in the past. They couldn't even leave Harley out of rulebooks like VR2 for god's sake!

Edit: To divert from Fuchs' oppinion above: I have more problems with the tendency of spontaneous IE-occurence in every aspect of the world, rather than the heavily-railroaded-adventures-with-unkillable-NPCs part. I did one simple thing with Harlequin , Harlequin's back as well as SotF: Not play them. I've had my share of GMs with unkillable plot-device NPCs without that.

The thing with Leonardo bugs me the most personally. Even a core Cyberpunk plotline can't develop without having an IE as the key player. It was just not necessary. And calling me and ED hater is bullshit. I play ED, I like ED. I just don't like the IE conspiracy, because it's a rather stupid conspiracy device that IMO takes away from the SF component of Shadowrun. Of course there's no need to explore the realm of human/transhuman possibility when the explanation for everything is "An immortal elf did it with his magical cyberdeck".

As you might have guessed, I really like the AI component.

I'd rather now the guy will still be in the plots later on from the first time I read about him, and deciding if I should try to avoid his death or not, than not knowing it.

I don't need him to dominate the PC to keep him alive. Just not roleplay him in a way that the PC will become his opponent. Cause yes, he may die from a bullet.

Must say that Leonardo and the genius level style sucks as science just don't work that way.

Par for the course with Dumpshock lately. I'm certainly not into message board Hitlers but moderators could be a little quicker to step in and say, "You've made your point. Contribute something new to the discussion or move on."

That beeing said, I think that Fuchs is right on some points. IE, GD shouldn't be running the world. It's highly unreallistic.

Contrary to him, I don't like the rumour method. I prefer to see a canon version and variation options.

However, a good plotting would include plots from many different factions, with events seeing every of them loose, with events allowing either the GM to:

-Read the events as when you just follow a serie (for exemple, I buy sourcebooks to read them, with no intention to use them)
-Use the events as a background to PC storys (for exemple, a corporate war)
-Directly involve the PC (e.g. A serie of big runs dismanteling a plotting vampire group)


Now that I saw more threads about IE and stuff, it's not their presence that sucks, but the way they were handled.


Actually everyone would be fine with good and realistic plots.

Those who like the ED connections would be fine with these going one (but rescale them and stop giving them an ultimate power feeling)
Those who don't just would be fine if the ED connections wouldn't take over everything.


At least, I would really adore this

That's all good, and works well.

Well, I share your opinion. Unkillable pet NPCs just rub me wrong as a player, but IE proliferation makes my work as GM harder, and adds a flavor to the setting I dislike. IEs (and most other plot elements of the setting) should be offered like spices at the table, to allow people to flavor the game as they prefer, not put into the core meal in big heapings.

The thing is... the old companions explicitly featured unbeatable NPCs - the Ultimate level.

Tough luck - if you don't like what the chef has to offer, you must cook yourself.

A 1 kiloton device has 4000DV. To determine to explosive power of a nuke take its kiloton rating, convert it to kilos by multiplying it be 1,000,000 , take the square root, and multiply by 4.



You can blackmail a named GD or an IE. It is just exceptionally unwise, not unlike blackmailing a megacorp CEO. The difference is that Lofwyr will mindprobe you to find the blackmail material and then vaporize you himself while Damien Knight will have one of his multi-initiate bodyguards do that.




I believe that the entire point of the unkillable NPC is to prevent the Players from ruining the metaplot. It is merely a tool to keep game worlds standardized to the official plotline.

Most restaurants that only offer one meal, and with just one way to season it, don't have many customers.

And what companions do you speak of?

He's talking about the old Runner's Companions. I have the German 2nd ed. one here, it's in the section "Top Runner" at p.85 .

Bingo. A recent example of that is the music disc from On The Run. If the PCs could hack the second half of the files, there would be no room for a sequel. While I doubt there will actually be a sequel to that module, the point is still valid. If you want to play in a long-standing, story-line driven RPG universe you need to accept that there are some targets that are untouchable: Lofwyr, Harlequin, Damien Knight, etc. If you don't want untouchable targets, you're going to have to break from metaplot. I don't see how there could be a compromise on this.