I disagree with the notion that a game company shouldn't care about the old gamers, since I suspect that those "elder gamers" might also be responsible for drawing in a number of those new gamers into the hobby, or the system. And angry gamers make for harder advertising to battle word of mouth - especially online.

Yes, brutally dismissing the old times, like Lonsing did, can kill product lines. It happened with German localised nWoD and nearly happened with German localised Shadowrun (though with the latter, a number of other factors came in too). However, the elder gamers should not be the center focus of the company's marketing, I think Critas is right there.

I think the poll speaks pretty clearly here.
If your the majority rules sort of person.
And not if you a frisky anarchist.

Regarding play-age vs postcount
I played SR since 19 years in all editions, especially on conventions (up to 30 of these a year with 3-5 sessions each, besides having 2 regular weekly groups, being a student has some advantage ) where you play by the book, no house rules. I have been supporting Fanpro with official gamemastering for years and do so now for Pegasus (the new german Publisher) being involved in the development of german SR-Missions.
Even though i did not post here that much since 2002 you could hardly call me a casual gamer.

I like the change of attribute karma cost as it was previously too cheap and not in line with skill cost.

One of my Characters lost 300 Karma in the process and i would have preferred the change with the introduction of the karma chargen. And i also see the need to give out more karma to compensate. But still i like the change and am happy about.

On the contrary I think the poll clearly indicates that Catalyst have messed up here.

From the shouting that was going on elsewhere I half expected 85-90% to be in favour of the changes. This would have clearly indicated that it was just a vocal, shouty, old guard minority that didn't like them.

This has not proved to be the case. To those that say this is not a representative sample I agree. A vast number of lurkers that ordinarily have little to say have contributed to these threads and they overwhelmingly support the changes.

The naysayers may be in the minority but with those sort of numbers we could still get elected as POTUS...

Can I just ask, did you vote leave-as-is for the Attribute change?

Uhm ... what's your handle there, or what was your handle on the FP forums?


Oh come on. Spinning yourself a winner because you did not lose as abysmally as you may or may not have expected (where else have you seen said shouting? Links?) is just pathetic. Accept your views are not shared by about 66% of Dumpshock forumites and move on.


And it rained on election day which kept your voters from attending the polls (but not the opposition's). RIGHT. And lurkers suck. Crizh, you sound like a politican who cannot accept defeat. Do you really want that?


Nope, not even that would work. There're enough votes for the small states. With 45% of the votes, maybe, but with 33%? No way.

Stop sulking, move on.

When polling, you must always consider how your sample compares to the population as a whole.

Well, Catalyst hardly brutally dismisses old timers. Hell, most of the freelancers are old timers and the line developer was a long-time player before he ever worked officially on Shadowrun. And the old timers certainly get their voices heard here on Dumpshock. And most of these errata changes are made in response to the players voicing up concerns here.

Indeed. Just because one disagrees with a change and one has been playing for a long time doesn't mean all other oldtimers think the same way. I should know that

Sorry to not have been clearer. I was referring to the way FanPro Germany and especially line developer Chris Lonsing treated old time SR fans. Yes, Catalys is a lot different there.

Yes i did
Surely some of my characters that previously exploited the low cost attributes now have some serious problems, but that is even more proof for the necessety to change it


@ hermit the same as here, did not post that much there (Fanpro) either (but a _lot_ more than here ) and at Pegasus i am nearly only active in the internal forum

But then you went on to say that you thought that it necessitated an increase in karma awards.

Perhaps you would have been more accurate to vote other?

Did you have he same avatar on FanPro? I am trying to remember whether I know you, sorry to bother.


WORD.

No, i recomment the change and want to leave it as it is now (SR4A)

If i then want a faster advancement i need to up the karma granted ( but with the suggested 9 per run i am quite satisfied )

@Hermit np, i had a different Avatar, same as used now on Pegasus

So you're going to be houseruling karma awards?

That 9 karma thing was Synner being wrong. As usual. It ain't supported by the SR4A rules or any official ruling.

So for RAW games, Missions and the like, you would agree that you would prefer a change to higher karma awards (about 9 per run)?

No, i am just fine if the full range of up to 11 is used but the problem is more to tell GMs to use what is in the book. I believe just about every GM has its own houserule for karma.
If i get only 3,96 karma on average for successful runs the GM is awarding not enough by the book.
Even the Missions seem to be against RAW in this regard

so what you're saying is that "many of us" and "huge numbers" you mentioned equates to the 10-15% you were expecting to agree with you??? you can't have it both ways and claim a win no matter what the outcome. a large majority of people either like the changes or don't care and that's a poll of the people that are the MOST interested in shadowrun because they take the time to find, register, and post on dumpshock. if you poll the people who simply just play the game for fun once a week or two, i think you'll find your 85%-90% in that much bigger pool.

i respect your passion for shadowrun and hope you continue playing. although i generally like the SR4 rules more than most other RPGs, i (like most people) use house rules and i suspect you'll have to also now that the newer version of the rules doesn't agree with you. i consider it a sign of good faith that catalyst is coming out with an erratta telling people of the changes. i used to play heavy gear and heavy gear blitz made by DP9; it's a great ruleset from a desperate, greedy company. within two years of the first printing of heavy gear blitz, they announced an "updated" version that will be coupled with an erratta for existing players. when push came to shove, they released the book making their other books obsolete (including one published less than 1 year earlier) without the previously promised erratta.

i don't know let alone agree with all the changes (since i didn't buy the pdf) but i think the overall effect of this book will be positive for the majority of consumers; that's a win for catalyst. i recently started GMing my first SR4 campaign with 6 SR4 newbs; they all HATE the organization of the current main book and dislike the majority of the art. the majority of them are also not going to be buying the additional splat books outside their chosen archetype so the index in the back is a big boon for when i don't want to literally stop the game so i can look up something in a book only i possess. now i can simply tell them to find it in the index and look it up themselves. when i mentioned the ads to them, they all liked that they would be in there. despite the fact that all of them are at least internet capable (can surf, ebay, email, and get on our group mailing list), only ONE of them has registered or even expressed an interest in dumpshock or other SR4 web resources. those ads help them decide what books to get.

I realized that after I posted I may have to rethink this, as I don't want skill groups going as low as 3, but I want skills to be discounted to some degree. Hm.

I said half expecting. We Scot's are used to disappointment. I thought that if I was wrong in my first opinion then the situation would be my second quoted opinion.

As that isn't what happened I am pleasantly surprised to be proved at least partially correct.

Clear?

We forgot a poll on the Device Rating.

I do however, note that 60% of the DSF users like SR4A at the time of this post.

I have introduced changes giving nearly 50% of Adept powers a significant power increase &/or reduced cost. We also use the Adept Initiation rule.

The samurai still is at least as good as the Adept. My changes where far greater & widespread than Catalysts. Yes, the Karma increase kicks Adepts in the nuts. I am, however, fine with how it affects Magicians, & think Technomancers need a re-write of rules, regardless of Resonance costs, but as far as Adepts are concerned, not nearly enough was changed in their list of powers.



As for everyone saying I should have included OR &/or Device Rating - the poll only supported up to 3 topics, & I felt these were the most important.

I'm not saying a game company shouldn't care about established gamers at all, or should go out of their way to "brutally dismiss" us. I'm saying our opinions don't carry more weight than newer gamers just because they're newer, and that, if push comes to shove, if anything the opposite might be closer to the truth. I do my best not to be bitter (about that in particular, I've got a few other chips still on my shoulder, don't worry), to accept that not everyone has the same priorities and expectations as I do, and to game on as best I can. Those who would try to force a game company to capitulate to older gamers at the perceived expense of newer ones are at best going to lose that fight, and at worst going to get what they ask for (and kill their favorite game).

Backing a game company into a corner and forcing it to choose whether to cater to it's old audience or to draw in a new one will, invariably, see the game company choosing what's best for the company, which might not be what everyone thinks is what's best for the game.

Ideally, of course, new products would appeal to both experience levels, everyone would masturbate wildly the first time they skimmed a new supplement because each page was even more awesome than the last, and the game would be so incredible that character creation made our farts smell like strawberries.

Wow Crit, not only are you an excellent wordsmith but you can squeeze in fart jokes and masturbation. I am impressed.

I totally agree with you but I'd like to point out that, in my opinion, Catalyst is starting to swing back around to the feeling of 1st and 2nd edition again (minus the Laubenstein). 3rd edition didn't do it for me, it seemed kind of devoid of the gritty realism that was portraid in 1st and 2nd edition. Even 4th edition seemed a bit cold but I liked the rules. The work done on SR4A has gone far to add that special ambiance back into SR. For me at least.

Now get in a rectal thermometer joke!

Magic Changes

I picked other because I am still unsure how I feel about them.

I voted Other.

Because I do not yet have the book, I would say my opinion would hinge greatly on how the rules are changed to accomodate and balance both old and new player characters without any unpleasant grandfather issues.

If the book was meant (and marketed) as an whole seperate edition (an SR4.5 if you will), instead as just another printing of the old SR4 that is backward compatible with existing characters, then sure. As it is, the way I see it, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. IMO SR3 was not much more than SR2.5 but FASA had the good courtesy of selling me a whole new edition.

*looks at Critias' well crafted posts*

OK, sometimes, Critias, I wonder if you are smoking something, as there are plenty of times where I really disagree with what you are saying, and think it is as paranoid as Cain's ramblings. This, time, however, you hit the nail on the head. I am a Battletech Player, as well, and I get frustrated by the grognards over on the Battletech forums who only want 3025, nothing new, nothing to change, ever. I see that alot here, as well, but, unlike Battletech, the Shadowrun rules change with each new edition. It may be the old timers who kept these great games going during the darkness that was the shut down of FASA, but it is the new players who bring life to the games. Sometimes, I get frustrated when I have to explain something I took for granted to a new player, but, hey, you know..it is the new players, the ones who come in with fresh eyes who can sometimes capture those moments of joy we all had when we were learning the setting. I enjoy the game, and, I like the changes. I look forward to my next game, which I plan to run in Seattle to take my players back to basics...(I am looking forward to running my old Fixer, Frederick Olivier Hollywood, again!). SR4A is what SR4 should have been, and I am glad for it. And it will definately appeal to new players. Especially since many core books I have seen for other game lines have full colour main books. D&D4E(bleg), Battletech, CthulhuTech...the times, they are a changin'. However, SR4A is also very much "Plus ca Change"

Except that many agree it should have been changed, but think it was done poorly, at best.

In regards to the opinion of newer players - my experience has been that, at least until they spend a good amount of time getting used to the system, their opinion on how the rules should work is almost always going to be as it is written. Even veteran players will sometimes think anything not RAW is to powerful or incorrect, regardless of how blatantly terrible RAW is, simply because it is not in official print.

I am also curious how many people voted for keeping it the same, not because they like it, but because they would rather not deal with it - yes, I know I have a Do Not Care option, but I would bet a number of people who should have voted for that did not do so.

It is rather idle to argue about what anyone better should have voted. They voted the way they have. deal with it.

"Low post count" does not equal "new player".

Thank you again, Fuchs. It seems alot of people on here keep forgetting that. I do not post here anywhere near as often as I do on the Battletech Forums, simply because, well, there is just not as much to say. I am not a House Rule Fetishist like so many of the people here, and, honestly, to me, here is just killing time until Holostreets is unveiled.(OK..yeah, I admit it: I still believe in Holostreets, a Battletech Movie, Battlecorps Exclusives other then miniatures every couple years, and the Jerry Bruckheimer Rifts Movie..) But, I have been playing Shadowrun in one form or another since 1993. Does that make me a new player, simply because I only have 475 or so posts on here?

i've not read the new rules yet, although they do sound interesting.
I've no problem with the karma increase for attributes. Advancement is not a big deal for me. However, i would be inclined to normalise for metatypes in exactly the manner suggested by the OP. My only reservation would be the problems this offers adepts, but they seem to have been thrown a bone elsewhere in the rules.
The changes in drain rules sound interesting, but reading peoples opinions and explanations leads me to want to change them slightly. I don't think the caster should have the opportunity to alter the net hits used. If you get lucky you should be boned almost as much as if the spell hadn't gone off at all! This emphasises the double edged nature of magic I like to present!
As for the ads, not having read the book I can't comment on how well integrated the are or how appropriate they are to the tone. Their simple presence isn't an issue for me.

Or maybe it is a player who rather adheres to RAW because his group/pool of players prefers it that way so as to not always have to deal with one another's preferred and different sets of house rules? The minute you have more than one GM, you have more than one set of houserule preference. To avoid having to build characters for each, which many dislike, you then go with RAW.


Analysing how people would have voted in your way but did not is just showing you cannot take a vote that does not go your way.

besides that - older players could be done with the system only having fun by testing out the flaws of it. no system is perfect, the question is if the design focus of it was reached and is broad enough to cater to the majority of play styles.

conclusion: it is rather dull to rant about possible irritations in the poll.

Two cents from a newbie --

I just started playing Shadowrun about a month or two ago with a group, we are totally new to it. Some of us have played D&D before, some of us are new to gaming completely. I feel pretty broadsided by the changes, simply because I just bought my 4th ed book like 3 weeks ago, not knowing there was going to be a new version with new rules coming out. So in that sense, I wish there had been more advance marketing so I wouldn't feel like I wasted my cash, or my time.

We are just now getting used to the SR4 rules without the new changes, and so I don't plan to add a level of confusion to my players by telling them that several of the rules we're just now starting to get a hang of are getting overhauled.

I don't see anything in the new rules that "bothers" me really, although until we've playtested it ourselves, I don't know how they'd work out. I just want to keep it the same and simple for a while. Once we've been playing for longer and feel really comfortable with the SR4 rules as they are, then we can talk about changing it, and maybe I'll pick up the new book (I am tempted by the full-color and new art, etc).

As for now, it just feels like too much too fast, although I understand thats probaly just me, since we just started. For those of you that have been playing 4th for a few years, maybe the changes are welcome.

Amen. I have a ridiculously tiny post count, and I've been playing SR off and on since that first edition back in '89.

And for the record, I like the SR4A changes.

Karma cost for Attributes? Yes I agree with the change, since it brings them in line with the skill cost.

Direct Combat Spells? I think the new way is not the best way. A 1 or 2 flat increase in Drain, plus doing something the Nerf Overcasting across the board is what I would have rathered.

Ads? They are fine, though as someone said earlier, they could have been done much better to fit the appearance and flow of the rest of the book. Make them fit the style of the rest of the book.

"Leave as is" still seems to be ahead in the Attributes and Ads polls, but at time of posting, Direct Combat spells has now shifted somewhat toward dissatisfaction with the errata.

65 voters for leaving as is.
47 voters wanting something different.

That's 3 to 2 in favour of keeping the changes which is actually pretty close.

On the subject of generalising about the stance taken by long-time vs. new players, it's meaningless to do so. It wont be accurate. I have played since 1st edition (skipped 3rd) so am certainly a long-term player. I am in favour of nearly all the changes except one which I see as flawed and one I am neutral on. So how has my stance been governed by the length of my playing?

It's moderately insulting to both new and old players to believe that our ability to determine the pros and cons of something must be derived from some arbitrary date of first playing rather than based on our ability to reason and evaluate. And if it's meaningless to generalise then it's meaningless to try and attribute a motive to the developers of favouring old or new players.

I'm sorry I brought it up.

It was really only a smokescreen for a different suspicion that seems to have been disproved on the other thread. My bad.

Message boards tend to go one of two ways...

The most common way is that the majority of the active posters like to "bitch". Part of this is that the internet is a great way to anonymously be a jerk and vent your frustrations, and part is that some people like the idea that possibly their gripes are being heard by someone official. Of course, people being people, they start assuming it's their right to bitch non-stop at every possible turn, and things just spiral down from there.

There's also a much rarer thing that happens with a message board, and that is the majority of the posters are active, and very positive about whatever it is they're discussing. Usually though, this is just as bad as the previous issue, because they group tends to form a hive-mind mentality, and are almost vicious to anyone that wants to have a negative opinion about any aspect of the subject or the hivemind.

It's incredibly rare to find any board that's achieved any kind of balance, and even when one does, it invariably doesn't survive for long, as members come and go.

It's sad, but it's true.

I could live much better with the new attribute costs, if skills would be lowered to x1,5 an skillgroups to x3. But that didn't find much fans at Pegasus' forum in Germany because it is believed to make the rules too complex.

The Hivemind thing is definitely a problem and it cuts both ways.

There are the mindless Thralls following the company line. Been there done that, defended Matrix:Reloaded until I was blue in the face.

But then there are the sheep that follow the herd that bitches and moans about anything and everything just for the sake of it.

Trouble is how do you sort out valuable opinions of people with genuine concerns from the clamour of those two groups.

And then there's the Trolls.....


OT Why does the Poll claim 131 people have voted but I can only count 120 votes?

it prolly includes null votes.

The easiest way to sum up my opinion is this. I won't run using the new rules, nor will I play in a game that uses the new rules.

Wow, I know that this was the other day, but I had to comment on this. Can you seriously think that the number of posts a person has reflects on their knowledge of Shadowrun? I've got near 5 times the post count to Hermit or Knasser, and I'm quite certain that both of them have a better grasp of SRs rules and their intricacies than I do. Post count means jack all. The more avid posters tend to be people who want to share (or press) their opinion more. I happen to like a lot of the changes, and disagree with a few. I also don't feel a real pressing need to argue it out. I know what I'm going to go with at my table, and leave it at that.

The understandable concern is what is going to be considered hard and fast rules in the future at conventions and Missions. The difference between the vocal minority and majority and those aren't is just that they are vocal. Everything else is opinion or preference.

Seeing the Direct Combat spells change left a bad taste in my mouth, guess what my vote was?

The pool is poorly-written. The first option is: "Leave as is"; which, since most people here don't have SR4.5 yet, may mean to them to leave it as in SR4.

I'd like to see a poll where the exact changes were listed as options. With the high dissention levels, I'd bet things would swing around real quick.

All,

I am not seeing an errata. Do I have to buy the book to see the rules updates?

If so, then 'I Don't Care' as this book and version of the rules will not be used by my group as we've just bought two copies of the BBB between us and won't be wasting money on a new one.

- J.

It will be released as Errata sometime in the near future, supposedly (date is unclear, but it will be in errata).

For those who do not yet have the book (I am not including OR changes or limits on upgrades, as those are not part of this poll):


Advertisement Preview (5 total)