So, I've recently been involved in arguments about what makes an accurate poll, and also whether SR4 is more of a good game than a bad game... One poster even claimed that it couldn't possibly be good because of how many house rule threads there are. So I decided: why not make a half-hearted attempt to discern who the members of Dumpshock are? Are they mostly SR4 supporters, or detractors? Do people think the game has more good than bad, or not? So here is my poll, designed with all of my half-forgotten polling expertise, learned from collegiate courses in inferential statistics and experimental psychology. Boosh!

Also, please think hard before you reply to the thread. I don't want a flame war about how good or bad SR4 is. I don't want to hear an elaboration of your poll choices. What I want is a discussion of the poll results, whether people think there are problems with the poll, and how they would interpret the results.

Damn, I already see a flaw -- for the third question, I'll have no idea whether 9 guys picked nothing and 1 guy picked all 9 options, or whether 10 guys all picked one option each. Oh well, it should be an interesting result, even though it won't lead to a solid inference about what the most preferred parts of the game are.

Such are forum polls. I think there's a website poll-hosting place out there that gives (the poll creator) a breakdown of who voted which way.

As a good citizen, i voted!

Think the poll is okay for the things you want to find out. Somebody will complain that his option isn't available, but well, such is the nature of every poll and election.

Voted.

Personally I find the rules better than most RPGs and more fun.

General fluff wise, I love it but that is largely owing to the 20 years of history the game has.

FWIW, I am not a fan of the recent fluff in the rulebooks at all (at least as far as its ability to educate new players and GMs over how things work). Particularly where old rules that have existed for the past 3 editions have basically disappeared with no explanation.

- J.

The way it figures out percentages is messed up for the last question, but you can look at how many total votes there are for either of the first two questions, and extrapolate. For example, currently it looks like 18 people have voted, so that makes the 17 votes of people who like the fluff quite a bit higher than 20%.

Voted.
I'd be kinda surprised if anyone actually ticks "I like SR less than other RPGs". I mean, if that's the case, why come to Dumpshock in the first place?
And I wager the reason there are so many houserule discussions around here has less to do with the quality of SR and more to do with this being a more game mechanics interested board than usual. At least, that's a big part of the reason I hang around here. I hate that gygaxian "You shouldn't understand the rules and use them to your advantage! That ruins the fun!" with a passion.

Dragnar: Now that you mention it... i never encountered a Rule Discussion in a oWoD Board (dunno about the new). Wonder why?

I voted too
I'd be kinda surprised if anyone actually ticks "I like SR less than other RPGs". I mean, if that's the case, why come to Dumpshock in the first place?
Maybe he can't find a Group for his favorite RPG,and has to stick with SR ? (nothing or the (for him)inferior System ?)

HokaHey
Medicineman

I voted "About the same as other RPGs" but that's more complicated than that: rules-light games will always have less problems since they have less rules. In Smurf RPG, you just roll 1D6 (2 if that's your field) and it either smurf (4+) or doesn't smurf. The rules are simple and have no problems. SR4 rules are more complex and because of this are likely to have more problems. Furthermore, most of us play a lot of SR4 and sometimes go quite far so we're more likely to find rule problems in SR4 than in other games.
But even then, compared to other games I played or GM with the same amount of complexity, I don't feel like SR4 is better or worse than them rulewise...

I enjoy playing SR4 more than other games, for a lot of different reasons but most of them are linked to the game's world. I like how the magic has been integrated into the setting without turning it into a fantasy game, so I voted for the magic fluff too. The Matrix and Cyber fluff are ok too but they aren't anything special compared to other cyberpunk RPGs.
I voted for the rules too because they have, for me, the right amount of complexity: just enough to make things interesting and detailed wihtout being too complicated and bothering.

I notice a distinct trend that the fluff is generally better regarded than the associated rules. Sure matches the way I feel about SR...

I have to admit, SR was one of my first RPGs i got into and knew what i was doing. In my gaming group a default gaming system is GURPs.. so when it comes to comparing the solidity of the rules.. i don't think many games can hold a candle to GURPS.... But i've mostly played DnD(and d20s), SR, and GURPS... and alot of little silly RPGs that were alive for like a month before they phased out. I have to admit.. SR is fun, kind of quick and dirty tho and i love RPing with SR.

Well there are still people playing 3rd edition and for them 4th is not the preferred version.

Never heard Gary say anything close to that. I have heard plenty of people attribute that to him though.

I am surprised by how close the margins are between fluff and rules though. IMO, SR has always been a very cool place to play with rules that had a habit of making the brain baby kick.

If I was to nitpick...I would ask why you didn't ask...

Which version of SR rules do you prefer and then offer up all four versions, with the option of voting for version specific fluff and rules?

No love left for the Matrix rules...

Lol, surprise! I suspect the person who voted that way comes to Dumpshock to troll and antagonize the hardcore SR fanbase. Just speculation though...

With the 54 respondents so far, it's pretty clear that most people on here are fans. The vast majority think the game has less than or as many rules problems as other RPGs, and most (70%) enjoy playing it more most than other RPGs. Only 6 respondents said it has more problems than other games, and only one said they enjoy it less than most other games. I think the most is important -- we're not asking if people have one game they prefer, we're asking whether they prefer almost all games over SR4, or vice versa. That means that our result is fairly meaningful. Those who said they enjoyed it more are really saying that they like it a lot, and the one who said they enjoyed it less is really coming down firmly against the game.

The poll is far from over, but early results follow my hypothesis that the board is mostly full of SR4 fans, not h8ers. My hypothesis is further that the h8ers tend to be a lot more vocal than the fans, and so the board acquires a disproportionate amount of SR4 hate. But in a poll where everyone can only vote once, and no vote can be louder than any other, they can't skew perceptions as easily

It also seems like, in general, people prefer fluff aspects more than they prefer rules aspects. So while the third result is fairly hard to quanity, my impression so far is that, while most people think the rules are less flawed or just as flawed as other games, they also think that Shadowrun's unique setting is its most important feature. One factor behind that result could be that even people who don't like the rules probably like the fluff -- that would explain why they're on Dumpshock, other than as trolls

Even if I don't hate them like some people do, I don't think they are one of "the best quality" of SR. They're "just" good enough.

@Larme: You seem to forget that the most vocal haters/trolls are often the biggest fans... Ordinary people, or people who don't like it just don't care.

Ummm...

*raises his hand in the back of the hall*

Excuse me. 54 out of 10,000...qualifies as most???
Most of the respondents...yes.

Your comparison is between SR4 and -----other----- RPGs. Does anyone else see the pink elephant in the room?

Your poll is skewed towards achieving the results that you went fishing for. Do you happen to work in politics?

Which is precisely why I always include an "Other (Please Explain)" option.

Such an option is not needed for the first two, because they are essentially a Yes-No question (the only thing Other is not needed for), but should have been included in Question 3.

Yeah, I think I indicated that. To quote myself, "With the 54 respondents so far..." I'm under no illusions that I have a representative sample yet. It might get there, it might not. Even if it did, to be sure that I had a representative sample I'd have to bust out a statistics prog and run the numbers. And I a) don't have one and b) don't remember how to do it. I was just ruminating about how the results so far conformed with my hypotheses, not that they constituted anything like proof.



No, I don't. Care to elaborate?

My own reasoning is thus: in order to have a valuable result, you must poll some kind of objective standard. If you ask "how good is SR4?" you have an invalid poll, because it's completely amorphous. Two people might like the game exactly as much, but because terms like "good" and "excellent" and "average" are relative, there's a good chance they wouldn't answer the same way. One person might call their enjoyment "excellent" and another might call it "good," even though in reality their enjoyment is pretty much equivalent.

The objective standard gives people a point of reference. I'm using relative language like "more," "the same," and "less" in order to ensure that everyone is using approximately the same reference point. That's not to say that they all have the same breadth of experience of RPGs, but at the very least they're all answering the same question.

One way I can see why you'd think my poll was skewed is if you started with the preconception that everyone on Dumpshock definitely liked SR4 more than other games. Then, you might jump to the conclusion that a favorable response was a foregone conclusion and that this poll was not genuine. I did not start with that preconception -- I genuinely want to know if that's the case. Is Dumpshock full of people who like Shadowrun, or is there a large population that actually dislikes it because of whatever flaws it might have?

And overall, this poll lacks the serious flaws that a really skewed poll would have. Over and over, I see polls on Dumpshock that make the answer that the poster doesn't like sound really unattractive. This poll would be skewed towards the answer I wanted if, say, one option had been "Shadowrun rules!" and another had been "Duh, me no likey." Each answer is based on the same point of reference, and each one is phrased with equally neutral language. That is the exact opposite of a skewed poll. You might think I asked the wrong question, but there's no way this poll gets a skewed response to the question I actually asked.



Other is not a very useful response. Especially because it's likely to start a flame war and derail the post, which is supposed to be about the poll.

I did just figure out how to use the data I collected, though -- at first glance, it's not useful because we can't know whether the responses are based on a small group of people who selected all 9 or close to it, or a larger group who all selected 2-5 answers each. However, looking at each category compared to the total number of respondents, we can see how many people who took the poll selected a given answer. Right now, with 54/67 people saying that the fluff in general is one of the game's best qualities, we know that the fluff is an overwhelming reason why the respondents like the game. With only 8/67 selecting the matrix rules, we know that most respondents do not think they're a best feature. So there is some interesting stuff that will come out of that third question.

probably because last i heard the ban on SR3 vs SR4 threads has not been lifted. essentially, some people can't discuss the question of which is better in a civil manner.

About the Same. Because no system has as many beta testers as people that will play and find problems.
About the Same. Meaning not all that much to begin with.
Last three checked.
Because i am a Sucker for Cyberware and Character Fluff.
Worst part of the SR4 Fluff is the Crash 2.0.
I won't go into why i frigging hate that piece of writing again.

strictly speaking, system failure (the crash 2.0) is an SR3 book...

I quite like all the Crash stuff. Its the Immortal Elves I dont like. I dont know why, but I was a much happier Shadowrun player before I started reading some of the Fluff and found out about things like the Horrors and Immortal Elves. Infact I am a bit meh about a fair bit of the magical stuff. Sure, its nice, but I prefer the street level nitty gritty, gun slingin', computer hackin', cyberarm wielding Shadowrun.

It probably doesnt help that I havent really fully read up on them (Hitting Tir Tairngire (sp?) and Tir na Nog (sp?) sourcebooks tommorow, might be more in there)

My favourite part of Shadowrun is actually the Matrix. Sure, the current rule system is really quite a beast to work with, but with some fiddling it is a fun little addon to the game. Plus its easy to write short stories about (Next Week, on the Adventures of CodeBreaker the Technomancer!) without knowing the entire 20 year backstory.

You'd be surprised. Dumpshock is a Shadowrun forum, so it'd tend to attract Shadowrun fans. True Shadowrun h8rs would have been run off or banned a long time ago.

For the record, I voted "Has about the same rules problems as other games", because that's honestly how I see it. SR4 is not the new FATAL. It's got problems, though, and there's no point in whitewashing over them and pretending they don't exist. On my personal scale, SR4 comes in somewhere around Gurps and Hero, both worthy systems in their own right, but not without their problems.

If you like Shadowrun, you could make it clearer. It would make people get a lot less angry at you and start a lot fewer flame wars. I know I've seen you directly state that its flaws make it a poor quality game, which is a statement that's hard to square with what you're saying now.

Quote me, then.

I've said its flaws negatively impact its quality, which is true. And since I'm not rabidly pro-SR4, I seem more negative in relation. Moderates always seem like Radicals to Conservatives, and vice-versa.

But I've been playing Shadowrun for twenty years, now. It's the game that taught me to be a gamer. Harlequin is the module that taught me to be a good GM; I still occasionally look at it for refreshers. I am passionate about Shadowrun, both its flaws and strengths. I love Shadowrun, and when I see things being taken away from the Shadowrun mold, I speak my mind. In my head, I have a vision of what Shadowrun can become, and it hurts me to see things go in the wrong direction.

I never got to run Harlequin (but I still read that module and Missing Blood with fond memories). I am in exactly the same boat as you Cain. 100%.

- J.

Seeing how it includes stuff which is supposed to only be relevant in the SR4 time-line, not in the 3rd, i'd say that it's purely semantics.
As its the lead in to SR4, basically the whole premise SR4 is built on, i will continue to say it's SR4 stuff.

Aaahhh...I didn't know that.

Well then, Larme, your poll is as good as you are allowed to make it and I appologize for indicating that you were fishing for a desired result.

Even if I was allowed to ask that question, I wouldn't. I only care how people feel about SR4. SR3 is just not important enough for me to launch a semi formal inquiry into its continuing popularity.

Obviously it is a moot point and my appology still stands.

I think the rules in SR4A are better than they every have been over all (worse in some places but for the most part improved) but I still think they suck compared to most "modern" rpgs. That would be rpgs with new editions written post 2000. I think there is a very good reason behind the suck though. Honestly they just have a bigger hill to climb. Between magic, matrix, drones, vehicle combat, and cyberware you just have a lot of variables to deal with.

The setting is what sells me, there are parts of the history I don't care for but I love metaplot. Its why I really love the oWOD over the nWOD (Though after playing too much oWOD I get in the THESE RULES SUCK! mode and start playing nWOD). Mechanics aren't everything. Like Cain I'll complain about this rule or that problem but its out of love for the product and I wish the mechanics would stay out of the way of my enjoyment of the game.

I really look forward to SR5 (assuming catalyst still does it) because I hope to see the first set of good matrix rules. I hope they align once again with the magic rules (SR1) so that way we can shrink the subsystems and focus on a fun game people can pick up.

There's no denying that problems are inherited over the years. Mechanics that people still rant and rave about are often little more than holdovers from previous editions. But if you were to change those mechanics, you'd offend all the current fans because you're changing their game. Doesn't matter if their game has problems, they'll resist. No edition will make everyone happy, either it will be too different, or too the same. People get mad no matter which way you go. SR3 people were mad about the very existence of change, and SR4 people are mad about not enough change. The only thing the devs can do is try their best to make an enjoyable game without alienating too many fans.

While you're right as far as it goes (there's people still playing SR2) I personally cheered when SR3 came out, changes and all. I loved the changes, even if I despised some of the things they left behind (Maneuver Score, anyone?) I also cheered when SR4 was announced, even though I knew it'd have dramatic changes.

It's not the presence of change that scares me. I like some of the changes SR4 made. However, overall I don't like the direction the rules took. I think they went the wrong way.

Break down of my votes:

• There are about as many rules problems with SR4 as with other games (this, however, doesn't
• I like SR4 about as much as other games
• The general rules are strong once you know how they work statistically
• The game world is fun
• The cybertech rules are neat
• That is all

I might have given Magic the Rules one for Drain if it weren't for Critter powers, and the complete lack of reuse in the overall design.



On the more recent bent of the discussion, I would have to say that I am very much an "SR4 person". Reflecting on that recent thread, it seems I'm far more open to thinking about how to change the game. I'm a programmer (not by trade yet, but by training). I guess this just makes me seem like an ingrate, when it's really one of the ways that I learn about and enjoy the game. I also play it, but not frequently enough.

But let's be honest: This post is going to appear as "You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Heath Robinson" to most people.

Ok, with the results of this poll, I have to ask: why always with the fighting? Two major criticizers of the game have posted to say that they support the game, and in general agree with other people that it's worth playing. Maybe this poll demonstrates the need for moderating one's language. When you comment on something that people really like, and appear to be consistently attacking it as a thing they should not like at all, that's basically a personal offense. Their own sensibilities and opinions are called into question. This can make certain people mad and therefore unreasonable. And that's what causes flame wars.

It's also important to recognize that tone is untranslatable over the internet. People are just as likely as not to misconstrue your tone in a text message, and if shifts closer to "likely" if you have a reputation for being a certain way, i.e. hostile. I've even tried to use simleys to make my tone crystal clear sometimes, and let me tell you -- it doesn't work. To me, a winky face says "hey, just kidding." But to someone who already doesn't like me, a winky face says "I'm smarter than you, turdbrains," or something on that order. To me, a sticking-out-tongue face says "here's some friendly teasing." To someone who doesn't like me, it effectively says "I'm smug because I'm right and you're wrong." The point is, if you don't mean offense, you have to say that with words, not just tone or subtext. Because people will NOT interpret your words the way you wish they would. Chances are, at least some of them will interpret them in the meanest, nastiest way possible. And that's not their fault, that's the limitation of internet.

So, this poll so far doesn't demonstrate anything that shocking. All it says is that the vast majority of us agree that it's a game worth playing. If the detractors could make it more clear that they are not a vicious minority intent on taking the game we love apart piece by piece, the flame wars would be averted. Instead of insisting that everyone who likes a particular mechanic is wrong, instead just say what you personally dislike about it. Don't make it sound like they're retards if they disagree. If you concede that the other side are not stupid, and that they can be reasonable people if they enjoy the game as written, they won't get angry and it won't become a flame war. The vast majority of my battles with detractors have been little more than my arguing that both sides have good arguments. And what do I get from detractors? Absolute, intractable resistance. You might not be on as many ignore lists if you would simply turn the forums from a contest to see who's right into a discussion of each others' preferences.

To be honest though, I'm not going to accept any olive branches from any repeat detractors unless I see them followed up with real action. I'd love it if more of you guys wanted to be good forum citizens, concede valid points by the opposition, and stop arguing when it starts becoming circular and you've got nothing new to add. I've seen it before, threads that drag on and on until they're locked, simply because an opponent can't agree to disagree, can't agree that the other side has any kind of a leg to stand on. All it takes is one simple sentence: "You've got a reasonable position, but I still think my way leads to a much better game." That's all it would take. And unless I start seeing some of that, I'm going to have a hard time accepting these overtures as genuine.

Interesting...you mean something like this?



An excellent example...really I could not have come up with a better example...bravooooo.

It was poorly phrased, what I was trying to say is that it's not important enough *to me.*

Freud would say that your slip is showing.

It just proves my point that you need to be careful with your words if you want to avoid causing offense. You can't say "this flame war's not my fault because I used neutral language." Other people, reading your language, may very easily mistake neutral for hostile. You always need to be clear what your intentions are if you don't want to start flame wars. Saying provocative things in neutral language is just not what someone who wants a peaceful forum does. The only way to make friendly intentions clear is to state them directly -- if you don't do so, I'll have a hard time believing that you have them.

For myself, I believe that the biggest problem on forums in general is that a great many people don't know the difference between fact and truth.

Truth is what a philosophy professor teaches.

Fact is what a chemistry professor does.

I see a lot of truth/opinions presented as facts. When that takes places it means that one person is right and the other is wrong. At that point there is slim to no chance that the discussion is going to remain civil.

In the past I disliked the prevalence of smileys strewn about posts...these days I think it required to avert flames.

Well I agree there. Like I already said, the majority of my Dumpshock fights have been me trying to convince someone to accept that he's just spouting his opinion, not an absolute objective truth. The response is invariably some form of "No, I already said it was true, therefore it is." That's what makes me think that many of these fights are just trolls, and not serious argument. If it was serious argument, they would reasonably concede points whenever necessary, instead of refusing to budge one micron.



Like I said, it doesn't do that. People will look right past a smiley if what you said inflames their emotions. They will also misinterpret the smiley. Upside down grin face might, to you, say "Hey, I'm a friendly joking person!" And to them, it might say, "Haha, what a retard you are!"

Just like in Real Life

It is difficult in having a reasonable discussion on the internet because of the disconnect. There are people out there that are spoiling for a fight. Which is unfortunate, because I would much rather discuss our opinions than get into an argument. It is an energy thing really. Being older I like to conserve my energy for the really important things that I do, like paintball.

That's a mistake people make, IMO -- "don't expect reasonableness, it's the internet," as if the entire series of tubes was all right here in Dumpshock. That's really not the case (thank jebus). Dumpshock isn't The Internet, it is a small part of the internet with defined rules and active moderation. Spoiling for a fight is not something we should accept as inevitable, it is something we should deplore as unwelcome in our little corner. If someone wants to troll they can go to 4chan, or some other board that doesn't care. The problem I have is that certain posters are always in the middle of flame wars that they manage to provoke without overtly flaming anyone. It's just too regular to be accidental. So if those people want to post and say "I like the game and mostly agree with everyone," they should start making that clear in their posts. That would prove that they have some purpose in mind other than starting shit.

Or, you could just make the assumption that everyone here is an adult, and is already starting from this premise.

It's not all the writer's responsibility. The reader also takes responsibility for any assumptions he or she makes. Starting a flame war over a misunderstanding is just as bad as starting one over a direct attack. You can assume that someone is trying to start something... or you can assume that they're looking for an intelligent debate. A poster has nothing to prove past his own points. Personality shouldn't matter.

And considering that at least some of the above is directed at me, I'll point out 1) That it takes two to tango, and 2) That while I do not apologize for my debating style, I have and do publically apologize for causing offense. The trick is in knowing when I've caused offense; but when I'm called on it, I always apologize.