A character's backstory is the reason for their stats and qualities being the way they are. Characters don't get "bonus" stuff for having a backstory. In my games, every aspect of character creation has to be approved by me and I don't allow some qualities to enter the game unless the character has an acceptable reason for the trait's existance.

Yes, this sort of thing happens all the time.

And it's actually the opposite of rules-lawyering. It's plot-mongering, trying to force new cool things into your backstory, thinking the GM will reward you for character depth. It tends to not happen so much in Shadowrun, but I saw a lot of cases of it in various White Wolf games and certain Larps.

This is exactly correct. Read it again, folks, because it cannot be emphasized enough.

Hey, I'll ever buy it, though not the mansions...

Things that give me a hook on the PC are good. I'll reward players for having a backstory that I can work with, but it's not a blank check.

It's happened to me a lot, and especially here on DSF. I have had to turn away so many characters and be yelled at by players who think being a blind, para-palegic pacifist should give them extra abilities beyond what is in the rules.

I make semi-long detaile stories for my PCs, it helps me get a bead on my character's personality and character. I'll submit this to the GM but I don't expect anything special in return in terms of BP, at most I use the rule of thumb that if you answer the question out of the Runner's Companion 20 questions, I'll give a couple of karma. I have seen this though, it's fucking annoying.

I quite enjoyed robins story, I have had players like that before, then I promptly hit them with the GM stick(my favorite solution was to have another player give them their character sheet with only a paragraph of character backround and make them play that character). As a player I think the most I ever wrote about a characters history is a page, and I only gave it to the other players in small bits. If you can't describe your character adequately in a minute, then something is wrong.

However, I feel it should be noted that in no way is that an argument against simple systems. The angsty-emo method actor is present in every RPG (though you see a lot of them in World of Darkness, namely Vampire the Requiem/Masquerade, wonder why? ), and a simple system really doesn't increase the chance that you'll get such a player, a rules-light system does. A rules-light system is a system in which there are few clear cut rules about how to create characters or what their abilities can be(burning empires comes to mind), and some how some of those manage to be amazingly complex to play.

On the other hand, a rules-heavy system (D&D and Shadowrun, all editions of each) are very clear what a character can start with and what a character can do. They just have both gotten simpler over time which means your character is less defined by what build option you picked, but how you use what you have. Sure shaman and hermetics are mechanically nearly identically now, but they can still be worlds apart based on skill, quality, and spell selection. In D&D there are less classes and abilities now, but each ability you pick means more and a few differences can make your character dramatically different unlike previous editions where every character of the same build was essentially the same.

Good and bad roleplaying is never a problem of the system, just some systems happen to attract bad role players more often. I will say that simpler systems attract less experianced role players, but that's not inherently bad.

I have to disagree about this being an issue with rules-light systems. For one, White Wolf is a medium-crunch system by any stretch of the imagination. Rules-light is Wushu, which I've never had a problem with.

Second, I have seen this problem in Shadowrun and D&D, just to a lesser extent than White Wolf. Certainly, I've seen people with huge back stories claim that their extensive experience entitled them to a higher level than the rest of the party. Right now, I'm having an issue with one player in Savage Worlds, a medium crunch system, who feels his character should have more starting equipment/cash. I simply point him to the character creation rules, and leave it at that.

There is pretty much no system out there I would play that wouldn't at least have a mechanic for determining how much wealth/stuff the character gets at creation.

It's not so bad in the Storyteller System (WoD1). The Trick is to tell the player, regardless of gaming system, "Yes, there are no rules that forbid what you built but i don't think it will fit in the campaign." or something along the lines.

A player who brings a submarine commander to a space opera or a gangster into a superheroes story. It just... isn't right.

Interesting, guess I'm the odd/lucky one. I've never had anyone push that. About the simple systems, what many of them let you do is allow people to have whatever they want, it just doesn't count. Take Wushu. If you have the impenetrable fortress as part of your background, and an arsonal that could end small nations that totally fine. You're just telling the GM that you want to RP a scene where you waste 100s of mooks and couple wings of your mansion, and that's ok. There is no -1 TN to dealing with ghouls to argue about.

About the rules lawyering, I guess I just have broader definition they you do. IMO if you ever ask for anything mechanical and then argue your case unexceptably hard (whatever you table sets that standard) then you are rules lawyering. The background attack is just constitutional amendment level lawyering.

I think the problem stems from the fact that most games, even level based one, do not strictly say, "all beginning characters are novice or apprentices of their trade." So players think that they have experience beyond this fact and that the game should reflect it.

Everway: this game did not have that type of mechanic. Also check out other games like: Panty explosion, Magical land of Yeld, Shooting stars, Shooting the moon, Primetime Adventures, ect. there are many games out there that do not fill the need to have that mechanic, buecause it is not needed to play the game. I think even BESM did not have it.

I seem to have been missed?
I can't recall to ever have liked 3rd edition, though, so there must be some confusion on behalf of the OP...

More on topic though:

I'ts been almost three years since the release of SR4, so it's understandable that the main brunt of nerdrage has somewhat subsided, and only flares up when kindled again, as by making a careless statement in the general direction of a die-hard SR3 vet...

I for one was very very pleased with the edition change, I have stated several times that 3rd ed. drove me away from Shadowrun, as I disliked both the (to me) overblown cartoony style and feel of the game and the sluggish overburdened rules (which, were more or less, SR2 with lots of extra baggage).
SR4, from the first peek at the rulebook, felt just so much more like the Shadowrun I had grown up with...

ISTR that BESM had a Wealth option that worked like the Money background in WoD. I've never read 3e BESM, so I can't say if they stuck to it.

The first RPG system I ever learned had no mechanic for starting resources: the Star Wars D6 system (by West End Games, not that Wizards of the Coast monstrosity). Here's what the rulebook says about it:

I sort of take a middle-stance on ''starting with weird things.'' I recall one time, our friend who was GMing let us each all start with one special little item; just something in our backgrounds. it was nothing gamebreaking or anything, but they were there.

While Mr. Ronin's story is, ahh, terrifying, if used properly, little things like this don't HAVE to be bad.

For example, a player who is playing an old character(let's say some ware made them a bit more revitalized physically), who'se a gunslinger; but since he's old, he's more old-fashioned. Let's say the rules don't have a very old fashioned revolver and rifle(i think now they do, so it's cool, but using it as an example.) They actually request if they could maybe work with the GM in tweaking the stats for one of the rifles to make it more like a very old-fashioned Western rifle; SS, black-powder, whatever. Even if this didn't exist in the rules, I wouldn't see a problem with it. Likewise, I remember before there were rules for throwing axes(when only RAW was out), I wanted my Norse Odin-Worshipping mystic adept to have thrown axes for his ranged weapon, and me and the GM worked out a reasonable design for them.

Keep in mind both of these examples don't have someone having the item for free, but they might not be covered by the rules.

Another example-say the said gunslinger above wants to play an adept, and he requests to split his Improved Firearms dice in a Geas-type thing; he gets half the bonus all the time, and the full bonus when using the original pistol he got when he was a kid. I don't see anything wrong with this either, and it's only kinda half covered by the rules(geasa tend to be all or nothing by RAW.)

Another example-say someone is playing a Norse Shaman, and wants the Berserk power-but their particular mentor spirit doesn't have it, they aren't an Adept, and the quality is usually only purchasable by Changelings...but they don't want to be a Changeling. I don't see what's so wrong with letting them spend 10 BP on the Berserk quality if they aren't a Changeling. Again, they're still paying for it and it fits the character, IMO.

So I think there IS room for some rule-quirks in backgrounds; but if taken to the extent of Mr. Ronin's example...yeah. It's gone a bit too far.

It's one thing to allow someone to buy an ability they'd have trouble with otherwise. It's another thing to demand a laundry list of them for free, all because you wrote a 20-page backstory.

Heheh. Wounded Ronin's post about 'roleplayer' players was dead funny. I've been luck that I've not had to sit through that at the table, although when I used to WoW there were a lot of folks with that kind of 'backstory' who felt a need to expound on great length about how they'd been raped by a demon or some shit. Funny the first few times, boring as hell afterwards, and at no stage even remotely interesting. I get kinda fed up with players that demand attention through absurd backstories that would be deemed too ridiculous for a genre soap opera, even if they don't try to use it to demand a list of freebies.

I think some folks just have a problem separating actual drama from cheesy melodrama. I wish more could learn that yes, a strong piece of drama or tragedy in a background isn't a bad thing; the shadows aren't the happiest place in the world. I mean, blowing sunshine up someone's ass for three pages can be just as dull. But...there is a line, and it is very easy to cross. I mean, surely SOME good stuff happened in their lives rather than them having been mind-raped by horrors for twenty years of their life.

that in itself would not bee as bad as some of the stuff humans tend to do . .
horrors are straight up about them wanting to torture you . . but only humans let you find real happiness only to make you watch as it gets all taken away and then irrevocably destroyed beyond any repair . .
read the wolverine comics series . . every time he was happy, yep, everything gets taken away and he gets mindraped again and made to believe that it is in fact all his own fault

Or those of us who still play 3rd ed have given up trying to explain why we like it in the face of intollerance from some of the 4th ed. people. #rd ed is not coming back so it does us no good to rant against 4th ed. We just ignore 4th ed. It never happened.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with that. Edition choice ultimately comes down to personal preference so there's nothing wrong with sticking with SR3 and there's nothing wrong with going to SR4.

This is one SR4 player that is not "intolerant" to the SR3 players, so I'm hoping I won't get any "intolerance" in return.

As I recall, there wasn't that much explaining why 3rd ed people still like the old edition. It was a great deal of explaining why 4th was horrible and anyone who liked it was retarded, IIRC. AFAIK, every 4th ed player likes 3rd well enough (at least those who used to play it), and though we have criticisms, it's not like we want it to go away. Which is not something that can be said for 3rd ed die-hards much of the time...

Firstly, that statement is false. There are plenty of people who came on and said "third edition was terrible, that's why I quit shadowrun, but 4th edition brought me back again". And of course, there are people who never did play 3rd edition (obviously, you clarified your statement, but the base statement doesn't stand on its own).

That said, not a lot of people would speak against 3rd edition because this is a shadowrun forum, and at the time, 2nd/3rd was basically the only game in town. Everyone on dumpshock at the time had played SR3, and 90% played it as their chosen edition (since the only other option was 1st). That's sort of a gimme given your sample audience. It doesn't show that SR4 players are more tolerant, just that when you take a room full of SR3 players, the vast majority of them also like SR3.

If you move over to a site which is not so heavily tied to SR3, like RPG.net, you'll find that a lot more shadowrun players (past and current) who spoke out against SR3. Once SR4 hit the markets and there was a significant population of people who came to dumpshock ONLY for SR4 stuff, you got a group of people who were against SR3. And even when the room was basically only SR3 players, you got a lot of people who were simply nasty in their arguments as to why SR4 was better.

After the initial conversations, as you got more people who were unfamiliar with SR3, and therefore didn't already know what made SR3 good, real comparisons as to why SR3 was specifically better (as opposed to just the assumption that SR3 is very good, and therefore if SR4 is anything less than very good, it's worse than SR3) became necessary and thusly more common. Before then, any discussion comparing SR3 to SR4 was simply superfluous. And of course, on other, non-Shadowrun sites, the comparison was always relevant, and came up in discussions almost immediately.

....And this is why the edict against directly comparing editions was issued. Things got personal. There were people on both sides of the issue who got hot-headed, not just "3rd ed die-hards". It's pointless to name names, but let's just remember that it takes two to tango.

Larme, may I ask what you're hoping to accomplish with this remark? It sounds almost like a direct challenge or trolling.

Selective memory at its finest.

Just responding to what was said. Someone said that SR4 people were intolerant, and I said that I thought it went the opposite way. If discussing a sensitive issue from my own point of view is trolling, then put me under a bridge, give me a nice big club, and... make sure to throw acid on my body after you knock me out, otherwise I'll regenerate

I don't think you were there for the flame wars, but you should be able to dig them up on a search if you try. It was both sides.

I'm sure you're right. It always is. My problem is I consistently underestimate how easy it is to hurt peoples' feelings on this issue... I say something that doesn't seem like a big deal to me, and suddenly people come out of the wordworks crying foul. Why can't we all just take the whole thing a lot less seriously?

I most assuredly was.

May I just also point out Larme that even on this thread both sides have gotten attacky? Maybe some of your posts are supposed to be not really serious and lighthearted, but on the internet it doesn't come off that way. Both sides have said "your a retard for liking this" at one point or another. Also I would also point out not everyone should be grouped in the the SR3 lovers if they are not happy with SR4. I myself have not played SR3, but am specifically getting tired of SR4 so I only have other RPG games to compare it to. My table is now trying to expand our gaming options. The big question is did you think at one point I was an SR3 fan? There might be a lot of others in this same boat.

Personally I find that people who are willing to point out problems with a game system are sorely needed. There are questions that arise in ways that maybe they should be regarded. Frank at times might have been a hot head, but he was a strong critic of a game that could have used a little retooling in certain areas. There are loops that need to be closed, balance issues to solved, and some people will speak out about this to prevent later problems in the system. I think SR4 is suffering from the amount of cool gadgets they are putting into the game with lack of forethought to the other cool gadgets they have already implemented. Our group found that the more books we got the less happier we were with the game. There were also quite a few people waiting for unwired to solve some issues that they found regarding the matrix, and to quite a few people when it only in their eyes opened another can of worms that some people truly started to get fed up. I truly felt like Unwired was a deal breaker for a lot of people, which is probably why you don't see as many people on the forums making arguments anymore. The way things were handled on both sides got really ugly, and that is where we are right now.

In several of the Shadowrun-based communities that I'm a part of, I was one of the earliest adopters of SR4. I have to say that I was so sick and disgusted with all the insults at my intelligence and criticisms about my gaming tastes, simply because I really enjoyed the new feel, setting, and ruleset for the game. I actually joined Dumpshock during that period where SR4 had just come out, and I had to read countless screeds by all of the SR1-3 diehards about how idiotic we were for having chosen this new edition over all of the previous ones.

Fast forward three years (has it really been that long...?) and I feel a little vindicated. The new edition has done remarkably well. More and more people are starting to adopt the game, and I can go out on the internet now and have civil conversations with people who have taken up the new edition, and discuss things we like and dislike. It's not the case anymore that I'm verbally assaulted the instant I open up my mouth and say that I've taken a liking to the new game.

I'm not saying that I think the game is perfect. Far from it. There's alot of breaking points in the mechanics, and some idiocy that crept in in some later books that I think wasn't playtested or mathematically analyzed at all. But then, I don't think there's a such thing as a "perfect" game system. SR4, warts and all, is nonetheless my FAVORITE system and PnP RPG sheerly for the fun I get from it. I've spent countless hours reading the rulebooks, GMing campaigns, playing characters, and enjoying the great world the developers have created for us. Even considering all the books I've bought for the game, in terms of dollars spent to hours of enjoyment, I've never played a videogame to give me as much bang for my buck.

If(When?) the day comes that SR5 comes out, then I may just be in the new wave of people who think the new edition sucks. But I won't be in that camp until I've gotten the book in my hands, read over it, tested the rules, and come to a conclusion on how I feel about the new direction. In the early days of SR4, people assumed I hadn't done that, that if I had then I would see how much superior SR3 is. And that simply wasn't the case with me. So I am glad that I wasn't the only person who saw how fun SR4 could be. I'm not saying my opinion is validated by the sheer number of other people who share it; it is nice, however, to see that there are other people who have as much goddamn fun as I do. And that makes me happy.

The problem here is that, even with smileys, you're picking at a lot of old scabs. Good-natured or otherwise, all you're doing is stirring up bad blood.


I love Shadowrun. I've been playing Shadowrun almost as long as it's possible to have played Shadowrun. I still have my original 1st edition book, autographed by Jordan Wiseman. Shadowrun, warts and all, was my favorite system AND world. And if you bother to dig up the old posts, you'll discover that I was an early defender of SR4.

What changed my mind? It wasn't the system breaks, although gods know there's enough of them. It was the simple fact that when I read the new system, it wasn't Shadowrun anymore. I can play it and have some fun, but it's not the same. Even Bull admitted it was tantamount to converting it to d20. It was not the same game I had played for the last 15+ years.

Now, I have to give credit where credit is due. There's been a huge push to try and recapture the "soul" of Shadowrun. And, they've kinda-sorta achieved that. There's enough to remind me of the old days. But that doesn't change the fact that it feels awfully like a new game, and not a new edition.

Interesting. Can you point to any specifics about what made it not feel like Shadowrun anymore?

Cain -

Mechanics/rules transitions aside, what makes it feel like a different game to you? I am curious.

- J.

Let's hit the obvious, first. The Wireless matrix is one of the biggest changes, and the one I have the least issues with. It feels like it was tacked onto the world, though, and everything else was squished around it to fit. For example, the Otaku/Technomancer switchover was poorly developed. According to System Failure, their abilities evolved before the wireless Matrix even fully came into being. Nowhere do they explain how people switch from being able to interface directly with the Matrix to becoming living radio stations.

The loss of original matrix terminology also hurt. Instead of unique terms, we've got ones that come out of the WinXP user's manual. "Firewall" might be more easily understood by modern computer users, but it doesn't exactly work the same, certainly enough to annoy the programmers I've talked to. It's also boring. More importantly, "Cyberdeck" was unique to Shadowrun; "Commlink" reminds me of the communicators used by C-3PO in the original Star Wars.

I guess it's the loss of terminology that really hurt the most. Some terms were pointlessly changed, like Technomancer to Otaku. They just swapped on nonsense term for another. Others were flat-out lies, such as "splitting" Quickness into Reaction and Agility. What they did was make Reaction a purchasable stat (not a bad idea, in and of itself) and then pointlessly rename Quickness. And some things were changed all out of recognition while leaving the term intact, such as "Dice pool".

Shadowslang was a huge loss. I know people here have gone back and forth on it, but "Drek", "Frag", and "Chummer" are as much a part of Shadowrun as "Frak" is to the new BSG or "Smeg" is to Red Dwarf. While you can have an episode of Red Dwarf where no one says "Smeg", if you try to swap it with another word, people *will* notice, and the show won't feel the same.

Again, I'm not saying that the SR4 world is a bad setting. I just don't think it's the same Shadowrun world I found, almost 20 years ago.

OK...not starting flame war, this is a big IMHO on the whol 4.0 thing (I was a big 2.0 player but not much xp with 3.0):

1. Damage is usually less lethal, but in some ways harder to resist. Instant kills are harder to come by.
2. Matrix rules are once again changed, I am thinking I am going to have to start mapping the matrix for runs again like in 1.0. Research/wageslave nodes, security, rigger drone networks, would all be on seperate nodes. Considering how cheap the computer tech is, I don't see a corp doing it any other way.
3. Evo, Ares, and Horizon, are almost good guys. This changes the feel for a dystopian future. The rest range from apaethetic (MCT/Wuxing) to evil Aztechnology/SK.
4. Punk is out....mohawks are so 2050s, Steampunk is in. Also there is more transhumanism in 2070 than 2050. If you don't like what you are, you can change it.
5. Busta moves.....cute looks. World peace ensues.

I think Catalyst should go back to the use of the SR slang....especially since some of us play where kids are present and it helps express the appropriate thought.(You fragging trog, what the drek were you slotting!, Transalation:You @!$$ing troll, what the @#$! were you thinking). Note it is easier to get past the 10 and under crowd. It also helps when playing to keep the mood. Frag..i occasionaly use it in RL coversation with others. But I'm strange that way....

Sure. "Security" would be a more appropriate term for what the stat is actually supposed to represent, but that term is also boring. I can't think of a more "Shadowrun-ish" term for that stat right now... I assume you also lament the change from "Decker" to "Hacker?" I can't say as I like the full word "Commlink" but I do think that when shortened to " 'link" it sounds more like "deck" and I have less of a problem with it.


I think the justification was that Technomancers are different "creatures" that Otaku. However the change is not actually that nonsensical because "Technomancer" was one of the "sub-terms" that some Otaku used to refer to themselves, the other was "Cyberadept." (I believe these terms were mentioned in the SR3 book Matrix)


*shrug* I think "Agility" is a better word for describing exactly what the stat is, personally.


I think this was a very calculated decision on their part. I believe (part) of the thinking behind adding the Attribute dice into the tests was to "dilute" the old Dice Pool dice into "everday use."


I 100% agree with this. It makes me very sad to lose the shadowslang as it was one of the things that really helped to make the game feel like it existed in another time/culture. I think "modern" profanity is just so.... dull and the move to strike the shadowslang for real profanity feels like an "Look at us 18+ crowd, we're adult!" move. The inclusion of pointless sexual-related game content reinforces this (penile implant, orgasm spell). I'm totally with you on this one.


It might seem realistic, but for the sake of fun, please don't. Those "Matrix mazes" were a giant, pointless, time-sink and the reason that no one wanted a Decker in the group... everyone else went out for pizza.


Oh man, those guys are far from "good" in my games. How can you call MCT apathetic? "Zero-zone" security (zero penetration, zero survival), the rape of the entire country of Tsimisan, live patient lobotomies of Technomancers? Every megacorp is evil, some just have better PR than others.

See, that's a noun which doesn't belong here: blood. Nobody bled over any of these games, but they act like the insults against their preferred game dealt them grievous wounds. Talk about drama. These so-called "wounds" are just byproducts of people taking internet seriously. As I'm sure you know, that is never a good idea. I don't accept criticism based on my opening up old "wounds" here, because the injuries at issue are an excuse. They're an excuse for people to shoot off their mouths, and then blame someone else for starting it. That applies whichever side someone might be on.

Re the slang: I for one like the fact that my RPG books are no longer censored for the purpose of making sure my mom doesn't freak out when she searches my room. This is chiefly because I no longer live with my mom (and that hopefully won't change soon, fucking economy! >.<), and it feels silly to avoid words like fuck, shit, and bitch for no reason. These words are all very old, and it requires some pretty considerable suspension of disbelief to imagine that they'll be replaced with nice versions of themselves, even as the world gets rougher and nastier. I'd probably be willing to put a bet in escrow that the word "darn" never replaced the word "damn," and the same goes for all the shadowslang. Yeah, it's part of a body of fiction with a history behind it. But people seem to say that because it's part of such a body, that gives it value. I say, it shouldn't be retained unless it was good in the first place, and nobody's convinced me that it was. But then again, I'm not an old fart yet, maybe nostalgia becomes more important as your come nearer to death's door, as I assume at least some of you are

Man I want to reply to all the criticisms on 4E at length but I'm at work.

In short, I see these and agree 100%. I don't see them as an ultimate failing of the game however. I absolutely love the simplification of the rules and "fixing" the Matrix . I bought 4E more for the rules changes. The background material, shadowtalk and flavor - well I can draw on ~18 years+ of books and experience (my god! that long?!?). Can the average player/GM do that? Absolutely not. Is that a failing of the current BBB? I believe its a BIG gap. Can it be fixed? Sure. Certainly not enough reasons to say it sucks.

All of them can be rectified by a good/experienced GM. Granted the game should be able to stand better on its own however. Only a very small number of these issues cannot be rectified without breaking canon (e.g. Technomancers).

Oh and that goes ditto for corps like Evo, Ares and Horizon sounding like good guys (Ares had almost taken on a Weyland-Yutani feel in my eyes after Threats 2.0 - now... ?). This is part of my beef with the lack of shadowtalk and general fluff. If you're not knowledgeable with the setting, you have no chance to really flesh it out to the depth that's required. And I think for most of us veterans, its that depth of detail that drew us into that setting and kept us here for so long.

I would have preferred Otaku to exist in the current 3E form but scrap permanent Fading (I always hated that). Stuff like the shadowtalk can still be retained. I plan on keeping it in my games. Personal Secretaries were always big in our old 2E/3E games so jumping to Commlinks isn't huge. Losing 'Deckers' however did irk me. Why not just use smaller decks and keep the terminology?

Anyway, this thread reminds me that I should print out a chat sheet for my players so they can keep to the lingo when they play.

Cheers

- J.

Sticks and stones, if you get my meaning. You're not helping matters, either, by passing it all off as "drama". The fact is, people here *do* take Shadowrun seriously, so making light of that really does make things worse.


Technoshaman, IIRC, was the term they used. At any event, the transition from one to another was IMO poorly handled. They could have gone into a lot more detail; but instead, they copped out and blamed it on a few hours exposure to the old matrix.

Attributes always factored into dice pools, but that's beside the point. The term "dice pool" was used because it was taken from the New World of Darkness, just like the rest of the core mechanic. I heard a podcast where Rob Boyle admitted the similarity was on purpose. Steve Kenson thought that since nWOD had borrowed heavily from Shadowrun in the first place, borrowing their system right back would be fair game.

The loss of Shadowrun-original language isn't an ultimate failing of the game, and I'm not saying that SR4 is Teh Fail. What I am saying is that the setting shifted dramatically, and not in a good way. It's changed enough so that it's not the same game I used to play. It's not a bad game, and it's not that you can't have fun with it. I am saying that it's New Coke, no matter how you package the can.

There's another one-- "making light." As if this was some kind of big, grand dignified thing which is not to be mocked. Just because people take themselves seriously on this issue does not mean they're justified in doing so. If people *do* take their opinions of the game seriously, I'm here to suggest that they *shouldn't*. If someone is unable to take a step back, and take a deep breath, and put the whole thing in perspective, that is a failing and they should not be defended for it. We should all strive to be better people, and nursing petty grudges is not a virtue.

Who are you to tell people what they should and shouldn't believe in? That may be all fine for you, but you are just as bad as the people who say "if you play SR4 you sux". Your worse really, because you take your self serious in that you belive you ahve the right to tell us what we should and should not take serious. That is not your job, discuss SR< argue SR, foam a tthe mouth SR< but don't come in here and tell us not to take is serious, and that we are wrong for doing so. You sir, do not have that right.

Why should we all strive to be your definition of better people? No one nurses petty grudges, the grudges people nurse are almost never petty. It is other people who make light of other people's feelings, of other people's grudges.

It is perhaps some grand dignified thing which is not to be mocked, just that you are unable to see it that way. Just because you feel that some people are not justified in taking the issue seriously doesn't mean they shouldn't take themselves seriously. The whole thing in perspective looms large for some people and that may not be a failing and should be defended strenuously.

The big problem is when someone clearly gives a well thought out argument about how they are not a fan of something and another persons response is "gee... calm down loser take a deep breath and realize that it's just a game." Yes someone will be offended. It is generally why things boil down into a flame war is because someone says some offhand comment that is totally pointless.

The term "bad blood" has nothing to do with blood. The term bad blood is used in situations where people hold grudges about how an event has situated. Personally I think humanity gets upset over totally pointless stupid shit, but that does not mean that I am going to go around and preach to people like I am some high and mighty god of everything that is right. There is way to much in the world that I don't know, so I don't go around telling people how stupid they are and how my beliefs are right... oddly enough talking like that can create bad blood between people. It's why I'm generally not a fan of born again Christians. Not because of their religion or beliefs, but because that they will not shut up about how high and mighty they are and how wrong and stupid I am. Doesn't matter that I never killed people, or raped someone, or had multiple affairs and they did, since they found accepted the big guy into their heart and all their past sins are forgiven I'm going to hell and they are in the clear so I need a thirty minute lecture on this. I had someone try to do this every single lunch half hour I had at one of my old jobs. It was the most annoying thing I had ever experienced. He had multiple affairs on his wife (has a lot of illegitimate children that he doesn't pay child support on,) killed someone in a bar fight while raging drunk, did drugs, stole, and then he saw the light and turned is life around. Now it's great that he turned his life around, but I don't need some asshole know it all getting into my personal space every single lunch hour and telling me to let Jesus into my heart or be damed for all eternity. After a while I just told him to leave me alone, and even then he wouldn't respect my wishes. No matter what I said he wouldn't stop bothering me, and it started to become harassment. Eventually I just left that job and went somewhere else.

Clearly people can hold grudges over anything, so why do you have to act like you are totally in the right and can openly tell others how wrong they are? That kind of thing stirs up old grudges that people have. It's also being somewhat of a hypocrite.

It is nothing short of hilarious to me that some people are doing their best to politely explain to you that right now you're jabbing a lot of people with a stick, and instead of not jabbing, you're picking up new sticks to jab more people with. Dumpshockers are showing amazing restraint and trying to explain to you that what you're saying is, whether you mean for it to be or not, the sort of thing that sparks flame wars and turns threads sour -- and rather than listen to them, you're belittling them, arguing with them, and saying people shouldn't get worked up as though that somehow means they won't.

Perhaps I might believe that no one has owned slaves in the America for over a hundred years and that the Black community should just get over it. That doesn't mean it's a good idea for me to stroll into the deep South brandishing a bullwhip and shouting at the top of my lungs for "some Negro" to come wash my car. And, were I to do such a thing, it would be an even worse idea for me to reply in an even more insulting manner should someone come by and politely tell me my language might be giving people the wrong impression.

Folks are telling you you're stirring shit up. Stop stirring shit up, don't argue with them over it.

Sure, I'll call that a perfectly fair observation. I guess I had forgotten about a lot of the "new" terminology because I ignored it and kept using the old "shadowtalk." I think the changes in SR4 were marketing-driven as an attempt to get Shadowrun to a whole new audience that was (possibly) put off by all it's "weirdness." In making it more "accessible" they end up making it less unique, which is a common problem in art. While that is lamentable, I don't think its an insurmountable problem for "old school" SR fans to overcome in SR4.