Greets,

I was reading a thread and I was struck by how some people are disaffected by Shadowrun. So am I. Rules lawyering and modifcation grabbing starts getting on my nerves after awhile. How do you deal with a possession mage whose average point of dealing damage is 30 and armour is the equivalent, and when everyone else is around 10-15?

Personally, any game where after 12 minutes of character generation with the GM making crib notes is enough.

So let's stop with Jenga style of tweaking the system and ask, what would Shadowrun be like if a completely different system would be used.

Me, after many years not playing GURPS, I would actually like GURPS Shadowrun. If I need anything special, I have sourcebook for it, from Bio-tech to future weapons.

Maybe I am not playing for the mathematically oriented, how about BESM 2.0 with Shadowrun? Or Amber?

I actually am GMing Shadowrun using GURPS rules. Two full runs so far, one per session, and both went swimmingly well. I have a lot of SR 4 books, and after reading them for a while, and seeing the kinds of things there were rules for, I came to the conclusion that the Shadowrun rules system really wanted to be GURPS when it grew up, so I went ahead and made the switch . A lot of people have had the same idea, so you can find a lot of material on this out on the Internet. GURPS is flexible enough that you'll find several different takes on "GURPS Shadowrun", too. My advice would be to forget about trying to do a word-for-word conversion, and just using the equivalent GURPS rules for things.

If you want something lighter and less fidly, I would recommend Wushu Open Reloaded (google it, it's free and pretty easy to find). It's an almost purely descriptive system.

You tailor the game to the PCs you have! I think there are some buggy things in the system, but overall it is pretty good.

Any GM worth their salt could figure out ways to challenge the possession mage without terminating the rest of the team. Off the top of my head... background count, enemy mages specialising in banishing, astral opponents, the list is endless and they don't need to have much of an effect on the rest of the party.

And in challenging this over-the-top possession magician, what else have you done? The Background Count you used just rendered the non-cheesed magician magically-challenged and caused the adept to become impotent. Banishing is fairly worthless by the rules - you're much better off just massively overcasting a Manabolt (or Stunbolt) and then rather than just challenging the guy you've destroyed him (not fun). Astral opponents are often outclassed badly by a strong dual natured opponent (such as a possessed magician) especially if that dual natured creature can fling spells at anything that tries to stay out of reach. If the astral things can cast spells too, then they likely have ways of doing nasty things to the rest of the group, and the possession magician is still likely to outsurvive the rest of the party. Sorry, but taking out such a character in the midst of a party without spilling heaps of shit on all of them is much harder to do than you make it sound.

As for the OP, I've got a liking for Cortex right now, but i'm not likely to use it for SR. Instead, I'd recommend Savage Worlds for Shadowrun. It already has fantasy races, cybernetics, and magic (although adepts are going to require a bit more of a tweak). All it lacks is a matrix system, but so far as I've seen, many players wouldn't view that as much of a loss.

My group is composed of a Technomancer, a Troll mercenary, and a demolitions expert, all built with 150 points in GURPS. I'm using Cyberpsi from the GURPS Psionic Powers PDF for the technomancer, and the other two are pretty much straight GURPS characters (the troll has a custom racial template, but that's something you can build with the corebook alone). Neither the troll nor the human demo expert have any cyberware, but that doesn't impact their efficience as characters in the least. Since the only "hacker" in the group is the technomancer, the self-contained rules for Cyberpsi have been enough for me.

No one has created an adept, but if someone ever does I'm going to use the Body Control power from GURPS Powers, with the Magic power source. For full magicians, I'm still a bit undecided over whether to use standard GURPS magic (which would lead to mages with lots of cheap little utility spells) or a Powers-based approach (which results in mages with a handful of really expensive spells). Both cyberware and magic are a little expensive in terms of points, so it's unlikely starting 150 point character will have much of either. That is perfectly OK.

Could you not just adapt the combat system for the meat world and mod it for the Virtual?

As to the OP... another idea is to use the Anime D20 rules. Just limit the powers that they can take and go with it. Every piece of cyberware (I believe) is possible under those rules.

It could be done, but it would be a really rough translation and would best serve as SR1-3's VR system. It's less suitable for SR4-styled AR hacking. That's for in-Matrix stuff; meat-world effects would be easier to simulate.

Technomancers could be handled with an Arcane Background and powers that let them use things like Remote Sensing and Control Machines with technology being the obvious tool involved. Hackers could have most of these meat-world effects too, and it might be hard to demonstrate a real difference between the two types. Of course, for many that don't like any of the Emergence stuff (Git yer magic outa my Matrix!), eliminating technomancers isn't a bad thing at all.

Whole quote, so that everything is in context. What I find important is the mention of Amber. Amber is a fantastic "storyteller" game. However, I use the word game very loosely. From what I remember mechanically everything is predetermined in Amber. WHile its fast, there isn't much game to it. Shadowrun on the other hand, is crunchy. It has been so since the first Big Blue Blook. /me hugs his First Ed and absorbs the wonderful memories.

There is a great deal of fiction posted by players but little to nothing in the way of adventures. Its hard to create games in the current system, generic games. Its nearly impossible to create static stats that challenge everyone. The Denver Missions sliding scale was helpful, though with my group we added 4 level of TR from the get go . What to do with high force spirits and sprites? Chrysalis, I don't know.

Any game requires an understanding between all of the players and the game master. My current group is having an issue with the deadliness that exists when you have chosen to run around summoning rating 9 spirits and sprites. The game is only deadly at that point. There is no "runs at 6 boxes", people take 0 or 15 from the Direct Spells.

If the players want and agree to a storytelling style, it is my belief that the game system doesn't matter. As soon as the players can game the game with the rules, things get harder. Even if they have promised not to be complete jackasses.

BlueMax
/latest whine
//"Why do we encounter so many initiated mages?"
/// From the dude who has 4 levels of initiation.

I actually created some SR rules to use with the free RISUS system so I could run a game on the fly when I travel or as a quick set-up for a con or something.

If anyone is interested here is a copy of the one page rules that I wrote

Ripping the background for use with GURPS is pretty easy...
...And since it already has rules for cyberpunk [GURPS Cyberpunk or GURPS Transhuman, or even GURPS Cthulhupunk - my fave], technology, magic, etc quite easy to play with.

Though, HERO rules are even more flexible...
...And FUZION rules are another good option - though you probably need the 3rd party produced rules additions for the whole cyberpunk and magic rules.

In reality, GURP and HERO are better rules in many ways - more flexible, more "tweakable" for different power levels and have had most of the potentially abusive bits already sorted out.
Plus GURPS and HERO are generally much more grounded in the realworld, so are easier for dealing with things that aren't already in the rules.

I remember from years back, from people who used to attend AmberCon, that several groups used dice mechanics to resolve things - completely stepping back from Amber's freeform nature


It was one of my longstanding problems with SR v3 and v4 - no adventures = probably slow death of SR...
...To which most people responded with "well, they do SR Missions" and "you can get old adventures" and "it's easy to write your own" - completely bypassing the fact that new players probably wouldn't know about any of those, and longterm players/GMs are already well stocked.

I once through about adapting D&D 4th Edition rules to the Shadowrun Universe, but then the fever broke...

I couldn't disagree more. What is the GM's function at the table? They are there to make the game fun for everyone, this goes beyond simply coming up with challenging opposition and dumping it on the PCs to see what happens. The GM is in control of the environment and all of the protagonists except for the PC which gives enormous scope for making life difficult.



Why should it bother the GM whether or not Banishing is fairly worthless? Perhaps if you are a PC trying to design an optimal character Banishing is not as effective as a Manabolt, but for a GM with the freedom to create whatever he likes and with a mandate to make the game fun Banishing is the better option. In these circumstances Manabolt is fairy worthless - as you so eloquently pointed out it is "not fun".

As for the background count suggestion - maybe it is a mage with mana static who targets the possession magician as he recognises the threat such a being poses. Perhaps it is just regular background count and it impacts on all of the magically orientated characters (how many are there at most tables - 2, 3, maybe 4?) The adept probably has useful skills outwith his adept abilities, enemy mages are as challenged as the PC mages and the possession specialist (and let's face it, if he is powerful enough to be a problem he is probably fairly specialised) is impacted doubly as his spirit and his magic rating have just taken a hit. The non-cheesed mage probably is rounded out a bit better and perhaps took a few levels of longarms. Not to mention that this is the opportunity for the mundanes in the party to shine! If the magic crew are taking names and kicking ass every week then throwing in the odd encounter like this gives the street sam and the hacker a chance to show their chops. Everyone should get their moment in the sun.

There are also all sorts of challenges that a big spirit isn't the answer to - on a stealth mission with plenty of astral security a giant spirit is probably the wrong approach. Why not throw in some roleplaying challenges, negotiations, hacking, bypassing security systems, etc. that use the skills of the team and not just the guy with the giant ape of a spirit. Send the team on a metaplanar quest so that he can't be possessed. Have them crack into a building with super-high force wards. Maybe that go-gang they're after picked up a single shot rocket launcher they've been saving for a really tough target. Panicking Lone Star goons with no other way to stop some all powerful spirit being might ram their car into him. Mobile opponents with aircraft or flight abilities can use their mobility against him. The ways in which you can challenge him are endless - and they don't have to result in everyone else being turned into red mist.

Keep in mind that this character has invested heavily in these abilities, so whilst they might reek heavily of cheese you should allow them to use them to great effect fairly regularly. Otherwise the PC isn't going to enjoy showing up every week to be creatively neutralised by his GM. The key is to balance things so that everyone gets these opportunities - if he is hogging the limelight invoke a scenario that knocks him down a peg or two and lets someone else come up trumps.

I don't want to argue the rest of your post, but this one is key. It's not just the GM having a mandate to make the game frun for the players - the players have an equally important responsibility to make the game fun for the GM. If they are always taking the most optimized methods of neutralizing the opposition - to the point of upsetting the flow of the story - then the GM is not going to have fun. Sorry, but the GM doesn't always have to roll with the punches and accept crap like that just because he 'can offer greater challenges' - he can just say "fuck it all" when he no longer enjoys showing up every week.

If you are really looking for something that has an easier flow and don't mind loosing the crunchy bits, you could adopt a high narrative system like Evil Hat's Spirit of the Century.

Define "upsetting the flow of the story."

Or, in other words, why the hell does it matter if they blow through the BBEG in six seconds? If you want to create some baddie to show off how tough he is, play a PC.

You could honestly just not let spirit armour stack with man made armour and that would solve your problem.

In other news the GURPS rules are absolutely horrible. They are so complicated for new players and there are quite a number of 'traps' that unless you know in detail how al the skills work, it is easy for an experinced play to make a character that is just 30% better than yours in every aspect.

And trust me, 30% better in every way is really noticable.

may i recommend the story bones rules or the original maelstrom storytelling game by hubris/precis. the rules for story engine/bones are unique ad simple. its easy to learn and use.character creation is fast and so is the creation of anything in the game world you might want. my group started playing it and played about 5 times before i went on vacation and other stuff happened. but we should get back to it soon.

Personally I am waiting to see what the Eclipse Phase rules turn out like. Chances are my group is going to be playing a campaign of that (With me as the GM) and from what I read online it has about the same amount of crunch as Shadowrun but in a slightly more streamlined package. Might be adaptable to Shadowrun.

If a story/adventure is set up with several dramatic scenes and the PCs are able to bypass the scenes way too easily because of a rules exploit, that is upsetting the flow of the story. It's like the time I saw a group of Star Trek players solved a mystery by just going faster than light and then turning their super-sensors back to the scene and waiting for the images and transmissions (traveling at lightspeed) to catch up. So much for any mystery.

Likewise, there are often genre conventions in many settings. Superhero games are big for the 'but we just don't do it that way' but even SR has some - and you'll see many posts here suggesting harsh 'hammer them if they try it' posts in response to players that go outside of these areas. I'd rather not have to hammer at anyone, but many powergamers tend to have no such reservations about hammering the GM's scenes. Some of them see the PCs as the most important thing and everything else has to bend before them - the world has to adapt to their playstyle and fuck the GM if he doesn't like it. I say that's crap.


you don't have a clue what I'm talking about. It's not about some NPC. It's not about showing off. It's about creating dramatic scenes and having some asshole trying to subvert it for his own personal enjoyment over thqat of everyone else.

Everybody else has done a fine job suggesting other systems, so I'll take a different tack.

I've seen many people argue possession mages are broken, and many argue that possession mages aren't. Ultimately, if they are destroying your game, remove them. If your players revolt, set up a few runs where they have to face some of them down, use the same tactics, then re-present your proposal. You don't have to take the game or leave it. You can use the parts you do like, and work with your players to make an enjoyable game for everyone. Nowhere is it written that every part of every source book must be used.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from using an alternate system. I'm also not saying possession is or isn't broken. I'm just saying that if you jump systems every time your players find the effectiveness you are going to be switching a lot.

Yeah, I know you said you didn't want to tweak, but everybody else gave you plenty of good options. Just my two

How many tweaks before your no longer playing the same game as everyone else?

I , and just me I don't know about anyone else, believe that a system must be played coherently across the majority of groups if it is to survive. Groups come and go. The easier moving into a new game is for players, the more games will survive.

My group and I are playing as RAW as we can. While I am not praising Shadowrun for being perfect, I continue to hold that you embrace something for its flaws. Because we all agree that Force/CF rating above 6 doesn't scale and neither do Spirits/Sprites above 6, we embrace them for as long as we can. By embracing them, I mean that we play the game as is while seeking the natural counters that make the most thematic sense. Its been up to two years for us to find solutions that already existed in the rules. Which is just part of the crunchy level or complicated nature of Shadowrun.

That's not to say that homerules are pointless. The game I am playing right now removed IP. I cannot explain how easy this made movement.

BlueMax

I found HERO not so bad, but we were always willing to let people rebuild their character after the first session or two if it wasn't working out. But the combat system is pretty slow and the mechanics don't really do guns that well.

Not really sure how "roll attribute or skill or less, on 3d6" to do pretty much anything in the game is "complicated"...
...Unless by "complicated" you mean there are lots of optional rules and lots and lots of source material and, because GURPS [and HERO] are quite grounded in the real world, they're as complicated as the real world.

And of course an experienced SR player can't generate a character that's 30% better than one generated by an inexperienced player - according to you...
...That's what experience means, you know how to do things "better"

Errr... maybe I'm mistaken but I was always under the impression that the PCs were the most important thing in the game world! They are described throughout every roleplaying system I've ever played as the lead characters. The types of character they play, the backgrounds they generate and the things that interest them are what will shape the type of game they play in.

Part of being a GM is being open to the creativity (and other annoying traits) of the PCs. If you prepare a carefully constructed dramatic storyline and the players blast it to pieces (by luck, design or whatever) then you should roll with the punches and let them, because otherwise your ramming them down the railroad tracks which (if they realise) they won't thank you for. Presumably as GM you would have access to the characters and be aware of their capabilities, so why design scenarios they can blast through? If using off the shelf material you need to at least take an hour or so to customise it to your PCs, this can even be done on the fly I suppose. A good example of a time I forgot this was when I stranded the PCs a few miles out at sea which was important to the plot - I had checked and the mage didn't have levitate and it was outside the riggers radio range, however I didn't realise the mage had shapeshift. He turned into a shark and swam back to shore in no time to pick up the teams chopper and go pick everyone up. It ruined a good few hours of prep, but it was right there on the sheet for me to see and it gave the PC a chance to shine and save everyone.

I've always loved GM-ing, even though it means my fun is of a different sort from the players. They get to enjoy developing a character, achieving the goals, succeeding in their missions (sometimes!) and just having fun. I get to have some fun too, but I take most of my enjoyment from crafting a story that lets the PCs have their fun whilst challenging them.

If you don't want PCs lousing up your "dramatic scenes" then maybe you should consider writing a novel.

A character in isolation is nothing. A PC is nothing without the game world it exists in. If the player(s) crap on that world, then they are going to be crapping on their own characters. So, while the players - including the GM - are the most important ingredients to the game, characters may not necessarily be so important on their own.


Within reason, sure. But what about when what they want is completely at adds with what the game world the GM has set up allows? If a player in most SR games wants to play a megalodon with Sapience, I'd guess most GMs are going to say "No." Sometimes being too open is a detriment to a good game. Knowing when to say no is easily as important as knowing when to say yes.


It's not always that easy. Sometimes you have players that are good at hiding their character's true capabilities. You don't see the cheese wheel until it rolls over you. Then you're left with the "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice..." and the hard feelings that can come of that. There's also the fact that if a GM has to spend hours checking over the capabilities of the PCs to ensure every scene is cheese-proofed, GM burnout will set in damn fast.


You make it sound like your fun is an afterthought. I'm not so selfless.


Nice display of judgemental ignorance. Your line here shows that you don't have the faintest fucking idea of how I GM. Welcome to my ignore list.

i keep my players in line with what i want merely by staying one step ahead of them. practice outsmarting your players.

im with mr clinton on this one. if you fancy your story as more important than your players you are bound to run into problems. really its sounds like there is a conflict of interests with your group. your players want one game and you want another. a group of players can pull a game together without a set gm. a gm on the other hand will have a harder time without players. its sounds like you have the same problem one of my groups gms had. eventually we got fed up of each other and stopped playing with that individual for quite a while. have you had a group meeting about the game and what you want to see changed? if they wont compromise then either you have to or just quit gming. if nothing else then give your players what they want. im a very open minded gm. i let my players do whatever they want , aslong as its in the rules or they bring it to me first.

That is an interesting point. I suppose some groups would like to stay close to the rules for the sake of coherency and ease of transition. My perspective comes from having played with the same group for over 6 years now. I've also never participated in PbP games, where I'm sure rules coherency is vital.

However, personally I see the group's desires as being paramount. They are certainly more important than adhering to some abstract concept of "SR-ness." If your group's desires include being loyal to this concept, more power to you.

Some people like to take things as they are. Other people like to seek continual improvement. The majority of us lie somewhere in the middle. If Chrysalis' group has had enough of possession mages, then they can remove the flaw they don't like and keep the stuff they do. For instance, they could keep the IP system you removed.

I have similar experiences with games I play. One game in particular the math of character advance broke down so completely that the entire game world was thrown off. After dealing with it the hard way for an entire campaign, we invented a minor rules tweak that fixed things perfectly. The game still has its flaws, but they much more manageable for our enjoyment now.

I cannot find the words to express how much I disagree with the first paragraph. There are six to seven players at my table, I cannot outsmart all of them. Nor can I be expected to come up with all the possible paths they take.

As for the second paragraph, there are parts with which I agree.

BlueMax

i must have some mad skillz then.

back in my school days i had three seperate groups i gmed on a weekly basis. two groups had 8 players each and one had six. it should also be noted that i dont railroad my players and if they stray from the path i set i go into improve mode. i generally set up a different "path" for each of my players styles. so one session in planning could seem like 8 different set ups. i didnt say outsmarting your players was easy, but it is possible. plus i love the challenge it presents to have to think on my toes and outwit everybody to give them there challenge. i guess thats where my fun comes from, to me its one big constantly evolving, ever changing puzzle.

and if anybody somehow took anything ive said in offense, i am sorry.

All I have to say is: 1/2 Damage?! WTF?!?!

OK, but seriously, the GURPS rules were written, and even make sense, when you're limited to muscle powered technology. As the TL progresses, it starts to get weird. And frankly, the tiny number of core stats ruins it for me.

On the other hand, if you're massochistically inclined, you could always have a look at the (out of print?) Silhouette 3.0 system, which has some DELIGHTFUL mechanics that I just adore.

But without a good way to handle drain, and essence loss, and a million-and-one other little things that make the 6^th World into Shadowrun, you lose an awful lot of what makes it special to begin with.

My favorite example of a system that died when it abandoned it's core mechanics which were tailored to the universe was the original Legend of the Five Rings. It was a Japanese stat system and that flowed right over into the skills and out into game play. Then AEG sold out to the Coastal Wizards and they d20'fied it. Thankfully, they've returned to their roots in the latest edition. (Which is a physically impressive book, incidentally. I keep telling myself "you don't need it, nobody will play it with you, and it's expensive." So far, it's still on the bookstore's shelf and not mine, but my resolve is weakening.)

If you make a point of trying to play within the basic assumptions of the creators (*gasp!*) and everybody at the table follows suit, including the GM, the current system does a great job in most respects of depicting and modelling the 6th World in the 2070s. (OK, the entire vehicle rules system is proof that somebody was deeply using something that they needed to be sharing with the other kiddies. But I can live with most of the rest of it.)

Every rules system has it's share of flaws and dropped threads. SR4(A) is no exception. What I like most about SR4 is just how internally consistent it's become between the three realms (Physical, Astral and Electron) and how things now flow so much better than they used to. But if you try to take the 6^th World out of a system tailored to the needs of the UAW (Universe As Written) then you chance losing so much more in flavor and function than you might gain in terms of pure rules mechanics.

To each their own, but I think if people put more effort into expanding on the rules as they exist presently (Things like you might have seen me posting in various threads) without throwing out the skeleton mechanics, and to defining their characters from within the assumptions and limitations of the creators, then I think a lot of the "alternate system" talk would drift away.

If you think the combat system's too generic and abstract for you, fix it. Want hit locations again? Do it. It's not hard. The called shot rules already exist. Figure out a way to use them. Don't like the generified weapons? Rewrite the charts (working on that myself). Don't like the totems as depicted? Rewrite them. The important parts are the basic mechanics like threshold tests, resisted and opposed tests, core statistics, and combat/damage system(s). Drain has always been what set Shadowrun apart from EVERY other game system with magic I ever played. Want magic more taxing? Tweak the formula. There are dozens of optional rules for tweaking game play. Try some of them. You'd be amazed how much you can make this system your own without tossing out the core pieces and making the related books useless.

*To be fair, I haven't a CLUE how to approach fixing the vehicle-related rules. Calling them a cluster-slot would be too kind. But I'm sure there's a way, I just haven't put as much thought into it as I have totems-er, mentor spirits and smallarms.

I really do suggest that you get the 3rd Edition of L5R... It has beautiful game books and the system is a dream to play... And it does not hurt that I simply love the setting...

Or the First Edition, also a dream to play.
At least for me.

It didn't hurt that I grew up just down the highway form AEG and my friends worked in Junzo's forges making the Clan War miniatures...


BlueMax

I like GURPs, but I've never used it for anything too physical. I use it for running paranormal investigation style games where there's next to no combat and it works wonderfully. I'd love to run a game like the old Masque of the Red Death Ravenloft campaign setting, man that was fun.

As far as the whole character VS story importance thing I feel that both are equally important. You need characters to move the story and give it life, and you need the story to drive the characters and give their lives meaning.

If your character is nothing more than the sum of their stats then they aren't a character, they're a formula. Go play with a calculator.
If your story is more important then the characters then you shouldn't leave your work up to the whims of the players. Write a book.

It's up to the GM to maintain game balance. a simple way is to set limits and ask that your players write a few paragraphs of back story for their characters.

But these are just my opinions and you're all welcome to your own, I'm very generous that way.

That's not really a good thing. Talk of alternate systems is going to spark creativity and allow for options that better fit particualr gaming styles. Why would we want that to drift away?

We used to have a GM who considered the story more important than the PC's (except for maybe the one PC he based his story around). It was a pretty boring game. We'd sit around doing nothing most sessions since we could never come up with the one action that the GM wanted us to take to make things progress. In the years I gamed with him I never once got to use my characters contacts even though I kept trying.

It was OK for him to dictate more of what we did when we were in high school and new to the game. But after getting to college and learning how to RP better we wanted to have our characters do stuff and make plans and have...well...character. That's when things went south, but most of us kept coming back since it was one of the few times we actually got to see each other.

Things finally imploded when another friend decided to run a game, but he lived with the old GM so the old GM kept putting ideas in his head and would essentially co-GMed with his character. He had a diva fit when my wife joined the game and everyone liked her character more than his and wanted her to be the team leader.

Yeah. No more of that for me.

You'll find that a good story-strong GM makes for a delightful game with far more regularity that one that's cruch-heavy. Unfortunately, it's harder to be a good story-strong GM than it is to be a number cruncher. Sorry you had such a bad experience. I've not been seen/presented the way you describe it - my players complimented me on the games I put together last night and tried to pull me back into SR with them, but I declined. Now they're putting together something with SR (a 'street-level' game that I have no interest in regardless of system used) on their own every-other week, and I'll be running a 1950s evolution of Hollow Earth Expedition using the Cortex System for them on the alternating weeks. A win for everyone.

I gave you the answer to your question in the larger prose of the same post:

To get that same creativity directed back into an existing system specifically set up for the unique opportunities, requirements and limitations of the 6^th World.

Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of cases where the rules can be tweaked or even rehashed without dumping the core mechanics behind and around them. Look for an example of what I am suggesting at the things I've proposed. Fundamentally it's just the outer edges of the rules that I'm trying to polish, not hacking and pruning. I'm trying, wherever I can, to make sure the changes I suggest don't have any effect outside their scope. Firearms, for the most part, is just adjustments to the tables, not the mechanics, it's just that I want a coherent system behind the chart when I do it. Funny thing is, there are plenty of weapons that won't change a bit becasue I was TRYING to keep the basic balance intact. The mentor spirit customization I posted can replicate each and every mentor spirit in the game. The biggest "mechanical" change I've suggested to date (that I can recall) is the one about noticing spellcasting. There ARE some sections that are pretty objectively bad, like vehicle combat, but I haven's seen too many systems that do them really well to my liking, and none were worth abandoning the core mechanics elsewhere for. Now, I'm not intimately familiar with the vehicle rules (I've never really enjoyed being a rigger), so I don't know how deep you'd have to go to get a decent fix in. But I would LOVE to see some of that creative energy you rightfully speak of directed at a task like THAT.

That's why I'd like to see a lot of the talk of "alternate systems" fade away. Doubly so, because as long as we're working on THEIR system, CGL has an incentive to remain actively involved with us, their fans. If we abandon their product to play something Shadowrun-like with another system, they have little real motivation to support and remain engaged with us as a community.

Don't get me wrong, I love a good story and a minimal to moderate amount of cruch and I've played in great story driven SR games. It was just that particular GM that had HIS STORY that had to be told no matter what the PC's did. And as a result no one had any fun.

I think part of the problem, especially later in the campaign's run when most of this stuff started happening was that there was so much time between sessions (6 months to a year) that the GM had too much time to think of the story and cement in his brain what the wanted it to be. When we were in high school and gaming every week he had less time to make concrete plans with us blowing holes in his NPC's every session.

I'm not sure how you can consider GURPS to be a more simplistic system. I can't really address that concept at all as it is so very, very mind-boggling to me.

If you do want to go streamlined, I hate to say it but the BESM system is really good for keeping things short and sweet. As are a lot of superhero game systems. You have tons of customization options available that, despite having so many options, are all handled the same way. You basically get to describe the rules however you want in order to create the effect you want. The Gun Adept, the Street Samurai, and the Weapons Expert might all have identical stats, but their flavor and style can and will be radically different.

As a GM, I actually ignore the PC's ability to cheese a scene to a degree. Why? Part of when I design an adventure, I go for versimilitude over challenge. As part of this, the fixer setting up the work will choose the team he thinks is best capable of accomplishing the task. So for a team to breeze through an adventure-not a big deal. I do adjust Karma to reflect the difference though.
For the players it is also fun that they can Pwn a scenario on occasion, showing that their PC is a badass fighter/stealth/close combat expert.

Another bit of advice for GM's--never ever get into a GM vs PC mindset. As buying the farm is still dirt cheap in SR4A, and that one good ambush is a TPK.

Now you're just being selfish. Let people put their creativity where they will - it'll still have some value to you, but you might need to put a bit more effort into converting it for your specific needs.

Hmmm... selfish. I guess you could look at it that way.

Of course, so is trying to get people to jump mechanical systems so you have somebody else to help carry the load on the conversion. It's all relative.

In the end, it's a question of: are we playing Shadowrun^© or another game pretending to be Shadowrun^©. I was under the impression this board was the former, and people trying to find ways to improve that game, not dump it and start over. Perhaps I was simply mistaken. All of my posts and comments have certainly been directed at that first premise, at any rate.

If you are going to steal my arguments, expect incoming

Thats why I want less fiction and more Adventures. People should play Shadowrun.

BlueMax

That's all a matter of perspective. To someone that embraces SR3, the current Catalyst rules are not SR. To someone that picks up a system - such as Savage Worlds - and utilizes the SR fluff within those rules, that becomes SR. Regardless of system used, if it's still set in the SR IP's Sixth World, it's SR.


To a degree, you are mistaken. This site is 100% unofficial with regards to any of the game mechanics out there. So long as a post is about the SR IP - whether that be FASA, FanPro, Catalyst, or any other mechanics used... or even the video game - it's still SR and thus is appropriate for Dumpshock.

I see I misconstrued the purpose of the board. Thank you for the correction.

*exits this thread*

I have a few comments that I'd like to make.

First, it doesn't matter what system you use, as long as its one that you and your players enjoy for the setting your playing in. However, there are some systems that are inherently better for certain settings though. I've run many different settings many different systems. While most of those have been in various D&D editions, I have only run 1 forgotten realms and 1 grayhawk campaign...everything else has always been my own setting. I always describe my setting to my players so that we are all on the same page. And sometimes (most of the time) when your playing in a different setting, you need to change the way that the rules work to more accurately reflect how they work in your world. I know some people don't agree with the setting I'm running now for SR. Its essentially SR with no magic. There never was an awakening. When you do that, you have to change the entire history of events of a setting (which i did), you have to change certain rules (which I did) in order to make the game fit with YOUR setting. Soooo, why play this using SR rules at all? I like them better. My players too. Cyberpunk 2020 would work more easily without changes, in fact I knew and played with a couple of guys that helped with its development. I still like SR4 better. So thats what I'm using. Why no magic? Because thats what my PLAYERS wanted. And now my players are more familiar with the system so we can add magic in more easily on the next campaign. A good GM works with his players.

Second, as a GM, you are not only the storyteller, but you also are the one that decides what flies in your games, not the players. You are the one that spends hours every week planning each run, each NPC, drawing out maps...doing the work. That doesn't mean that your story or the world is the most important part of the game though. You still have to be receptive to your players and be able to think on your feet for when your players do something unexpected, or better yet, anticipate what your players will do when you can. Not to try to foil your player, but to make what your player does have real meaning and consequence in the game world. After all, its their game too. But as I said, your the one doing all the work, so your completely within your rights to say when something in the rules doesn't make sense, is too easily abused, doesn't fit with your idea of the setting, or is something that goes against the rules as intended rather than rules as written. what do you do then? change them. say something doesn't work, doesn't stack, and tell your players why it doesn't. A couple of things so far that I've changed are matrix rules (very slightly) to fit more in line with my group's experience as an IT professionals and programmers (all of my players work in either IT or programming or have strong background in either, I myself do both). there's no huge changes, but they are not RAW. And developed them with my players input. And to counter-act silly armor stacking (FFBA, PPP, Gel packs, etc) I've made some rulings against that.

A good GM knows the rules, knows his players, and knows how to change the rules to fit the game.

I was thinking on hijacking the thread for a moment. What's a system which has a good drug creation rule system? I mean the SR rules for making drugs don't really exist, but I was thinking on what would a Trainspotting/Shadowrun game be like.

So it's dfinitely more about the spliffs, smack, horse, and PCP then about guns, cars, and mystical indians.

IIRC, Cyberpunk had rules for brewing up your own custom drugs.

However, most effects-based systems (Hero, Mutants & Masterminds, etc.) can be used to build drugs. In these systems, the only difference between a drug that boosts you and cyberware (or magic, or whatever) that boosts you would be in the descriptors applied and any baggage that you elect to apply. If you want drugs to be addictive, you'd add that in as a flaw/complication/whatever but you could just as easily make certain enhancement spells addictive with these systems too. Hero is preferred by many, and it's a complex system that allows a great range of options. I tend to prefer M&M, and Sr could be done well with the guidelines in the Mecha & Manga (martial arts and adept-like abilities), Iron Age (get your grit and cyberpunk on), and Agents of Freedom (less super-hero and more super-agent... think of NickFury as a shadowrunner) books.

By the way, we need to sort out rules/penalties for shooting while suspended upside down or proceeding along a zipline. I've realized if poop hits the fan and my character is in a different buildings but needs to be in the building where everyone else is, a zipline is the best course of action, but I don't want to go barreling through windows without checking to make sure the room is clear first.