Ah this is where you can do a little bit of judo on the system and find an amazing game.

I have very broad taste in what I can get out of an RPG. I like building super collaborative settings. I like RPing tense political situations, I like optimizing the the hell out of a character. I like factoring in RP opportunity into "equations" for optimization. I like stimulationist combat. I like thinking through the effects of events on a speculative universe. etc

When it comes to rules system, I've been spoiled by hyper specialist systems. What GURPS and Wushu have shown me is that that no hybrid system can compete with a pure breed at what it does. Even Feng Shui doesn't do 98% action blood opera as well as Wushu. At this point in my gaming life I don't want a system that does anything poorly. I want a rules that directly lead to memorable experiences or get the hell out of my way.

D&D is does just that. It creates mechanics in only one arena: Combat. This allows for some really good tactical combat. It keeps all the players engaged because they are all relatively balanced. No the Best part is that keeps it's grubby mits off everything else. You want to craft stuff? Great, Free form it. No anemic crafting system to get in your way. Want do "legwork" great free form it. And that my friends is the Judo. Use only rules that rock. Free form everything else. In some groups that works like a charm. That's what I love about 4th ED. IMO it's not just another top tear rule set. I brings a new play style to the top tear club.


----


I realized that I strayed a little from what I quoted. Specifically to respond to that, 4th ed does really limit character builds. It does not limit characters per se. The rules are so focused on combat and to agnostic about everything else that actually enables you to do whatever you want! Hello for people who are really into RPing a character it should encourage people to create an actually character because reflexively RPing from your stats is pretty weak under those rules.

very nice

it's not that D&D limits itself to combat only. i could deal with a lack of a robust crafting system. i could even deal with some of what are frankly completely nonsensical rules that don't help with suspension of disbelief even (though i still won't *like* said rules).

but here's the thing. back in 2nd edition, there were dozens of options available to a spellcaster right off the bat at first level. sure, you could prepare magic missile, but you could also have jump, spider climb, sleep, charm, etc. 3rd edition more-or-less continued that trend, with dozens of options right off the bat. 4th edition? no, sir. you don't even have a choice of any power that doesn't make things go boom, except for 1 of your powers that you get eventually which they call 'utility' powers, which can instead be a power that just makes you better at making things go boom, or it can even be a power that makes it harder to make you go boom. back in the day, i could use an illusion spell, or change shape, or any of a number of options. in 4th edition, i can make things explode. that's pretty much it. depending on what class i choose, i might have different degrees of explodey-ness, or be able to explode two people at a time instead of 1, but they don't even consider the possibility that i might just want to be able climb up a wall, walk on water, put an obstacle in between me and my enemies, or summon a monster to help out. my options are to shoot stuff, shoot stuff extra hard, and shoot stuff extra super duper hard, with various degrees of movement involved. i don't even have a choice whether i want to cast a mount spell, or a spider climb, or a wall of wind, or a transmute rock to mud, while in combat. they have deliberately limited my options in the name of speeding up gameplay, and while i can understand what they did and why, i'm certainly not interested in playing that kind of game. basically, anything that might make a DM have to actually think has been removed. and the whole reason i like pen and paper over CRPGs is that there is a living, thinking, sentient being who can give me the freedom to explore options that aren't just multiple choice.

when you have a spell that does not need a roll realy that compeatly repaces a skill it is overpowered.
yes they lower the power of wiszerds.

I don't think you disagree with me, I think you agree with me The debates were settled as to "which game is better from point of view x." That's what I'm talking about as something that's easy to figure out objectively. But they were never settled as to one game being "good" or "bad" objectively. That's because there are too many ways to enjoy RPGs, and you can't just stick on a general label like that without having a comprehensive theory of what makes a game good, which everyone can agree on.

The question of "what defines Shadowrun" sounds like a lot of masturbation to me. The above argument is useful, because players who like a certain kind of game will know which one they'll probably enjoy more. But once you know what defines shadowrun, where does it get you? At most, if you win the debate, you get the moral satisfaction of knowing that you are playing "real" shadowrun. I'll play whatever the hell I want to, and I won't be deterred by anyone arguing that it isn't the real deal

WTF? Of course it sucks. That's why I never bought the 4th ed rule books. I was just under the impression that people were getting in trouble with the admin for saying that it sucks.

He was one of the best. He understood game rules in a way that most people never attain. The loss of him represented the loss of some of the best rules analysis I've ever read.

SR4 is not a good system because of lack of clarity on the rules, lack of playtesting, lack of forethought, lack of balance, and lack of functionality of the rule set. Character generation is a long winded process, if your character does not have 3-4 IPs they get to sit most of the combat out or get wailed on, and combat can take up more then half of the table time even if you are prepared. SR4 is a confusing mess and when you want to try to consult the rules that are not in the BBB or street magic you go through an unhelpful index which will generally have you coming back to it more then once (Arsenal had me look for something for over 20 minutes before I realized that it was on an obscure page in the weapons section... stupid super guns or whatever it's called.)

What it does have going for it is amazing history and fluff/concept that has persisted for over 20 years. Now the good almost makes up for the bad, but SR4 did not create the history, or the setting, or the concept. I enjoy the concept, and the attempt to simplify the rules, but for every rule book that is added it feels like it just adds a whole other needless layer of complexity to a game that could use some toning down with the added dig of lack of foresight on rules that have been previously implemented.

So yes I don't like SR4, and I don't like where it is headed, but I'm not going to sit there and argue with people who are on the other side of the fence. It is an argument that has no point as I believe it's a bad system just as others believe it is a good system. Heck if you like the game that is fine and wonderful. It's not for me though, and as soon as our group finishes up with our story arc we are going to stop playing SR4, and will no longer buy any more books.

It's funny, those were all the things they pointed at 3 and said, "this is why we make 4". Shadowrun is a complex system, I like complex systems. I don't want a dumbed down game. I like combat that takes thought and tactics, not a system where you have 2 options for combat and that's it.

First you actually can do about half the things you say can't. And I'm perfectly comfortable with "nerfing" magicians. The more flexible magic is the more broken it is. I have yet to see an exception to this rule. So if you want balance and the ability to fight with magic you basically have to deal. Oh and look every single character can use any spell they want to out of combat. I just don't see 4E restricting the stories you can tell, and I do see it improving the tactical experience.

But to bring this back around to the point I was trying to make. 4E does something very well, and doesn't get in the way of you doing other things free form. I really don't think you can ask more of a system, and I'm happy to have my array of hyper focused games expanded.

Troll much? I wasn't really trying to start a flame war, I was just wondering if the controversy had died down. I'd appreciate, as a matter of courtesy, if people would at least make a minimal effort not to troll.

Ease up a bit. There were more than a few warnings/suspensions handed out at the time amongst the naysayers.

You can only beast a dead horse so much.... but hey if you want to know if tghe naysayers like myself are still here, pop up a poll.

Or you know... create a thread where you make a dig at the people who don't like the new edition and then back off saying that it's everyone else's fault but your own. Although I don't know why anyone would do that.

thats crazy, crazy i say......... crazy enough to work.

You must be clearly playing by a different set of rules then.

- J.

He's playing the same set of rules I use, as it would appear. Where some people see restrictions, others see possiblities. Those are the people who can enjoy 4e, I guess.

I have no doubt. And I am glad that the system works for them. For me it doesn't. I still think SR3 had it just about perfect.

Shrug. I like the new D&D4e. I like SR4. I like Ike.

Your an Aussie, you don't get to say that

And.. Hey Fortune *waves*

You know what you should do? When someone does something bad, do the same thing back. Because two wrongs definitely make a right.

Seriously, I won't pretend that I'm not responsible for this thread's existence. That's why I'm asking people not to troll. Arguing is fine. Even good natured digging is ok. I just want everyone to remember: we're all friends here. Nobody has harmed anyone else, and nobody deserves to be flamed. So please, let's just be nice, reasonable adults. If this thread is too much of beating a dead horse, we should just let it die.

Yo Joe!

I have said my piece.

I also said that to be silly more then a dig to your OP. The main reason why I find a thread like this to be not very helpful is because it only digs up what doesn't really need to be dug up. Some people like a complex rule set, and some people don't. Some people like sci-fi only, and some like fantasy only. The people who don't like SR4 have as much of a valid reason to hate it as the people who like it.

Different strokes for different folks. However it is unlikely to believe that either side will suddenly "see the light" and switch over. I and my group however are just slowly getting sick of SR4 for various reasons. Maybe these reasons will become apparent to you one day and maybe they won't. In the end it doesn't matter and just creates the huge potential to become a flame war.

I would say it's more like beating a post-dead horse. Kind of like a horse that has already gone to the glue factory and you are trying to beat the individual packets of elmer's glue saying that it was once a dead horse that still needs to be beaten.

[Insert Flame Here]

You're right of course. I just got curious one day, and made a post about it without considering the consequences. Apres moi, le deluge!

Yeah that different strokes for different folks thing is all well and good but subjectivism isn't an absolutely in most thing and not a terribly useful point in those cases where it does apply. As for arguing about the merits of system X over system Y, it's enough for me to at least have a look at the system given the outcry of the posters and the vehemence with which they post makes me intrigued about what the big deal is, I've got a month of free time maybe I ought have a read through 3rd.

One thing I've noticed in most new RPGs is the act of simplification (oftentimes referred to as streamlining, as simple is kinda a bad word in the PnP RPG world for some reason).

The idea behinds most the arguments is that a simple system is a shallow system that makes generic characters, while a complex system is deeper and creates more unique characters.

In truth though, that argument is completely false. Complexity does not equal depth, and in fact it can hinder depth more then anything else. When your character has lots and lots of different classes/abilities/spells that they choose that do interesting predefined things(called crunchy bits from now on) you oftentimes find an inability to see past the crunchy bits and the numbers on the character. I can't tell you how many people play a chaotic good rogue/wizard/bard or whatever and think their character is done because they came up with a unique build. There is also a problem where in systems with lots of crunchy bits, it becomes difficult for your character to do anything they don't have a crunchy bit for, greatly limiting your options.

On the other hand, systems with less crunchy bits tend to force you to personalize your character. With less abilities and choices to make, your choices matter more and have a bigger impact, and you have less chance of everyone having some of the same abilities, as you have less slots to pick the powers that "everyone needs" forcing you to have some weak points. In addition many characters feel more effort to role play and make a good character backround, to make them self feel more different then the other people of their class/archtype. They stop being "Bob the wizard/rogue/bard" and become "Erebath the hunter, bounty hunter by day, assassin by night, trying to raise money to save the orphenage where he was born". Plus in simpler systems is usually easier to pull of an action not clearly defined by the rules, actually giving you more things you can do.

So, PnP RPGs are evolving, and finding themselves a bigger audience. The new trends may estrange some older players, but remember, RPGs are a hobby, there is no right or wrong system as long as everyone is having fun.

Ever heard the story about curiousity, the cat and the blender?

I will say, the original post was probably the closest thing I saw to a trolling post for 5 pages. Eyerolling at the arguments of people who didn't like SR4, and saying you hope they're gone. Not especially an invitation to polite discourse, especially when you remember that for several months people had posts deleted and were even banned over the subject. The pro-SR3 people have a lot to be upset about - losing their favorite game line, then seeing themselves get heavily moderated and banned for complaining, and finally watching as their forum ceased to even afford space for their discussions (with everything now being SR4, SR3 discussions are basically pushed to the sidelines).

The fact that you decided to poke them with a stick to see if they're dead and didn't get flamed for five pages (and only got this minor response on page 6) is a testament to their restraint and respect.

I'm sure you thought it was all just a cute joke, but consider that people who feel upset or even cheated might not share your levity on the topic of "lol stupid SR3 ppls, SR4 ftw!"

This is one of the best position arguments I've ever read. Well stated, sir.

I wasn't here but were the pro-SR3 posters actually engaged in polite discourse or was it the remix of the anonymous Internet-nerd's mantra of "I hate change"? I'm all for polite discourse but I don't see it very much when it comes to these types of debates. Some people simply aren't capable of expressing critical thought in a way that doesn't come out as sounding outright hostile. I don't agree with what the Dumpshock mods do here 100% of the time but I have a hard time believing that someone would be banned simply for expressing a well-reasoned argument against SR4 as said expression doesn't violate Terms of Use.

At the same time, a SR1-SR3 Players Forum on Dumpshock would be a terrific idea if it didn't make players feel like they were being shoved into a digital ghetto. Given the amount of repeated topics this board has it would make for easier conversation.

EDIT

Hooray for the saints of SR3, that they can weather such a withering storm of eyerolling without going berserk! Though to be fair, I only started the post because I thought they might be gone, and wanted to know. Probably not a reasonable thing to think, but there you have it. In the future, I will be much more careful with the delicate psyches of those who have been wounded by having their favorite game banned forever, without any way for them to play it ever again. Oh wait...

I'm not trying to be cruel or mean, but you can hardly blast me as being evil for a little good natured ribbing. Again, I wasn't trying to attract an argument, I was asking an honest though perhaps misguided question. Like I said, two wrongs don't make a right, if I made a mistake by irking SR3 fans with the original post, that doesn't mean it becomes proper for them to flame. If I make a mistake, I should be called on it, and I have been. Now let's bury mr. horsie, k?

While things got heated on both sides, until the proclamation against edition comparisons came down, there were several suspensions if not bannings among the naysayers that I know of. I do not know of, nor have I heard of, a single person banned for trolling pro-SR4. That's not to say there wasn't trollish behavior on both sides, it's just that I haven't heard of a single pro-SR4 person being punished for their views, no matter how it was expressed.

Some of this stems from the fact that computer role playing games do compete with PnP role playing games. While note exactly the same experience, (I'll add that IMHO 4E D&D is a perfect example of this), it is close enough to market to both crowds. I do like 4E in that extra dice (from skills and such) mean alot more than in previous editions. I also like the descriptions of skill levels in the BBB, it is great for when a GM needs to put together an NPC on the fly.

Frank also understood the world in ways that very few people, including the devs, seems to have. His occasional posting on the Ares/Bugs relationship/war provided a better way to understand what was going on that all the chapters of stuff in various books.

I love this point and think that for all the time spent downing a streamlined ruleset, this is often forgotten. Instead of players spending so much time picking crunchy bits and defining their character through those crunchy bits, you can spend your time actually personalizing a cookie cutout and have a lto of fun roleplaying an interesting character.

You summed this up quite well!

As I think of it, the last two games I have been playing in (both having undergone their 4th editions), I really haven't thought of other PCs in terms of their classes or powers. Its almost like everyone has had to come up with some personality for their characters to differentiate them in the group...and the games have not suffered at all in spite of the streamlining...

There was. There used to be an SR3 forum and an SR4 forum. Then they just merged them and basically the deluge of SR4 posts (which are never labelled as such) means SR3 discussions basically disappeared. A lot of people complained at the time, but little good that did.

Also do keep in mind, the majority of the mods are also involved with the production of SR4 books. They have a financial, vested interest in SR4 being successful. I'm not saying they don't do their honest, best work here, but when you play paranoid criminals for fun, little things like that still tickle in the back of your mind.

Like Cain mentioned, SR3 people were gagged or banned. I don't know of any SR4 people. I also know even polite discussions were shut down. They should, in theory, still be in the archives if you want to look through them.




I don't think you're cruel or mean. I don't think your ribbing was good-natured, either. You claim to want to bury the hatchet, but I notice you haven't apologized for being insulting, nor did you edit your original post, AND you become even more insulting when called on it. So when you ask your question, are SR3 people still here, the answer is yes. When you ask your question, who is the worst troll here, the answer is you.

This isn't true. Just taking a quick look at the mod list, divided up into active and inactive:



Of the active list, I'm the only Catalyst staff member, and I leave 99% of moderator duties to others. Occasionally I ask people to drag things back on topic, but that's about it.

Bull and Caine have done some playtesting, and Caine does some work on Shadowrun Missions.

Dunner is Catalyst's Shadowrun ebook developer.

On the inactive list, the only one who's done any recent Shadowrun work is Pistons -- and she hasn't been active on Dumpshock in years.

[Said people should probably be removed from the moderator list ...]

OT: Whatever happened to Paolo and Dvixen, anyway? After they got married, I haven't heard a word out of them.

I really don't see what the big deal is. If people like SR3 better, then keep playing SR3. There are certainly enough books/material to do so. Also I don't see how SR4 is any different than any other (major) edition change that other RPG games have undergone. Personally, I've never encountered a "perfect" RPG system. There was stuff in SR3 that I didn't like, there is stuff in SR4 that I don't like. However, to me, RPGs have never been about the mechanics they've been about the story and the mechanics are simply a means to tell that story. Thus, mechanics have never really been that important to me.

Me neither. I've rarely been tempted to replace a game I enjoy with the next shiny new version of it. There are some exceptions, of course. Like if someone was in the group and was curious to try it out. They may run a session with it.

Ooh, you got me! World... growing faint... only regret is... didn't troll enough!

Ok, enough with the jokes though. I think my point is that you're taking this way too seriously. You want to win the argument? You want to prove I'm the villain? Fine, I admit it, I'm the villain. You win. I think I apologized by admitting fault in at least two points. But if you want to be a politician about it, fine. (This brings to mind the presidential primary, "he said that he disagreed with Reverend Wright, but I didn't hear the word "repudiate!"" And then when Obama said repudiate, they criticized him for not saying "disavow.") I apologize for any trolling contained in my posts. I wasn't being serious, I wasn't trying to start a flame war or belittle anyone else. All's I want is that, regardless of who may have "started it" there not be any more trolling on this thread. As I've said several times (and as you have failed to agree with! ) two wrongs don't make a right.

I'd suggest PMing the mods, doing it politely and consistently, and making sure that those who agree with you follow their convictions and do it as well. Though I'm a SR4 player, I agree that the SR1-SR3 players should get their own fora as the two editions' rules are different enough to warrant it. Speaking for myself, I'm not one who sits on my hands and complains when I don't get what I want.

I did a quick look-through at the 2005/early 2006 posts and didn't see anything particularly flame-y. I'll look again when I have more time.

As far as I know, there has only ever been one person banned from Dumpshock, and that had nothing to do with the SR3/SR4 debate.



I'm guessing Doc Funk doesn't count. There were others as well, from both sides.

This was more or less why I stopped reading Dumpshock for a while. I deal with SR4 because I have to if I want to play Shadowrun (because of the people I know locally who have any interest in Shadowrun, I don't know a single one who owns any non-SR4 books--good for Catalyst, bad for me), not because I want to.

C'mon, man. You're gonna try to tell me that having absolutely no new material ever again, even material you can reasonably port to it, wouldn't make things just suck a little for you?

Like I said upthread, I'd shell out cash without even blinking for a SR3 Refresh which adapted the SR3 game world to the SR4 ruleset (it'd be the easiest way to get my players to look at SR3 over the mess that is SR4), but it's not like that'll ever happen.

See, I hate that crap, where people say a whole bunch of things about their character which can't be substantiated by stats and rules. There's some people who like to go on and on about all these weird details about their character and want all this stuff to impact the game when there's no rules for implementing such a character background or for handling that stuff in-game. The reason it's a GAME is so that we can have rules and strategy and planning actually make a statistical difference. If instead as the GM or a player I'm forced to listen to someone ramble on for 15 minutes about his character's asinine quirks and "deep" backstory I begin to wish I'm somewhere else doing something else.

Player 1: "OK, my character is an ex-military sammie. Due to PTSD he can't hold down a steady job and ended up forced into the shadows to get the nuyen he needed to maintain his cyberware."

Player 2: "Fine, my character is the Amerindian Shaman. He was framed for the murder of his brother by a vengeful free spirit and was forced to leave his people and become a shadowrunner."

Player 3: "My character is a Japanese physad. He has bipolar disorder and ended up outcast from Japanese corporate society due to an inappropriate show of emotion during an important corporate function. Frustrated with his career, he finally chose to resort to being a shadowrunner and to one day seek revenge against those he sees as responsible for his disgrace."

"Role-playing" Player: "My character is a half vampire half elf skinny pale female who wears a trenchcoat with a katana and an uzi. She was sexually molested by a hermaphrodite nun at the convent where she was being raised in France and then was cast out into the streets when she tried to seek help. She lived this BRUTAL, HORRIFIC life being a cybered prostitute and doing drugs and struggling to scrape by and shit. And then she met this effeminite somewhat skinny man with long hair and a gentle face who was like this father to her, and eventually he became 'more than a friend', but then some gangers killed him and tortured my character for a week straight. That's when my character's magical talent emerged and she flipped out and screamed and this big spirit appeared and killed all the gangers. But then she felt guilt and started cutting and had survivor's guilt, so she got hooked on BTLs began cutting strips of flesh off her body and feeding them to ghouls as a ritualistic way to purge herself. So then she met this sentient ghoul, and understood the harsh discrimination of society, but then he was killed by the Renraku red samurai, who also captured her and sexually molested her. Again. And then in turned out that the captain of the red samurai was this vampire, so he infected her with the virus, and then she cursed her fate and wept on a rocky outcropping with wind and shit out side Seattle....."

(fast forward 20 more minutes)

"....and that's why my character should get -1 TN to interactions with Ghouls, a secret lover within the Renraku red samurai, an extra magical power point for ritualistic self-mutilation, a close working relationship with an Insect Spirit, three mansions in the Seattle sewers which are hidden from everyone and which are not allowed to be attacked by NPCs, a spaceship, and a lightsaber. Oh, and an extra karma point for character depth."

That's the point when all the other players collectively pull out .45s and shoot themselves.

I think I love you, Mr. Ronin.

Does this actually happen?
Also simple games fairly resistant that style of rules lawyering.

Crom's blood, man, do you think all that just came out of nowhere? As a GM I've endured things very, VERY similar.

And the whole point of rules is to set some parameters for what a character can and can't start with, i.e. probably no unassailable sewer-mansions in triplicate. If you are playing a very rules-lite game, there's less basis to object when a player says something along the lines of, "I wanna be Batman and have the Batcave which nobody is allowed to attack because nobody knows about it, and billions of dollars, and the Batmobile, and all this that and the other." In SR3 the GM could just say, "Har har, too bad that would require a whole lot more build points than you actually have." In a rules-light setting it would be easier for the player to bellow, "BUT I HAVE THE PACIFIST FLAW IT ALL BALANCES OUT DAMMIT!"

I sympathize with your sentiment, though I think you could be a little less... angry? I used to play on a Shadowrun MUX where people used to say that they hated rolling, everything social had to be freeformed or they would leave, even though we have character sheets for the precise purpose of guiding our RP. So I know what you're ranting about. But I don't think anyone here is saying that there are certain things that can't be represented by a sheet. What they're saying is that having less stuff defined by a sheet does not mean your character has to be less interesting or unique. Just because your character doesn't get points for his flaws doesn't mean a good roleplayer won't give him any flaws, for instance. More complex stats aren't a substitute for roleplaying, and they're not a prerequisite for it either.

I'm genuinely glad you enjoyed that post so much. I was only able to produce it because of much suffering as a GM. It's good that something positive has sprouted from the fallen tears of my salad days.