I started this poll up as sort of a "refinement" to the other poll, so that a more complex array of answers would be possible.

GunnerJ,

Thanks for the refinement for my, admittedly, crappy one dimensional poll. Good work!!!

wouldnt 50/50 be the same thing as both are vital? heh

Not really. 50/50 means you could remove one and have half a game, "completely vital" means if you take one out you've got nothing (or nearly so).

~J

100% setting: I want NO changes in the setting, evolution yes, but nothing drastic, no SR - dark age, no SR - BESM, no SR - GitS clone. All that changes should be based on happenings described in existing books. No disappearance of major metaplot figures either - no sudden IE disease, no sudden GD demise, no breaking up of every corporation, no US restoration.

50% mechanics: There's a lot they could cut back on, and a compete remaking of vehicle and Matrix rules might be in order, but NO changes to the heaps of D6 I get to roll!

Guess that makes me 'other'. And no idea why my vote didn't get through.

but if you take out 50%, you're obviously lacking some major point, but i null voted.

SR2 to SR3 had some wide sweeping changes of its own. And I'm just not seeing the 'drastic' setting changes. Sure the timeline is advanced, and the Matrix is being rconfigured, but FanPro isn't rewriting the Sixth World. They are just evolving it, not making every bit of history (or even any of the history) that came before invalid.

cant comment on the sr1 to sr2 changes as i got into it late sr2. but to me the sr rules reinforce and give shape to the sr fluff.

Aren't options 3 and 6 the same?

Look up.

~J

Well excuuuuuuuuse me.

SR1 to SR2 was a much-needed streamlining.

SR2 to SR3 seems to have been more minor changes (and ones that continually trip me up - "Did you roll the Force of that spell?" "Yes. ... Oh yeah. ((adds a couple of dice because Sorcery is higher))"

Very important poll to put up GunnerJ. Many thanks

Admitidely, I've always enjoyed Mechanics over Story. I am can always make up something to fit what I want, but solid rules are important for my group to help them know what they can and can't do.

I like my rules static, and my storylines fuzzy.

Mechanics all the way. A streamlined system that's easy and fun to use (but with a bad campaign setting) only requires a few hours, a word processor, and a few large sheets of graph paper to correct. In contrast, a bad set of mechanics will cause me to move over to the Dark Side (A.K.A. GURPS) despite the lack of fun nifties inherent in Shadowrun, and not buy any more rulebooks.
For the record, I did the same thing with AD&D 2nd edition back in my AD&D days. My players liked it too; they could get a HARDCOVER player's handbook for 8$ in a used books store compared to 30$ for a PAPERBACK 3e edition. And, of course, another one for 3.5 in six months. So, be warned: I'm not going to move unless the game mechanics are a LOT better than those of SR3.

SR3 also broke up quite a few of the skills (especially combat ones) into smaller, more specific, skills. No more "Firearms 8" guy who can pick up anything and kill you with it, melee combat/edged weapons/knives specialists, or unarmed combat/kung fu/hand strikes masters.

there was a paperback 3e PHB?

unless i'm badly mistaken, my hardcover PHB--and DMG, and MM--all cost $30, even in 3.5e. it was actually a really good deal, if you just bought one edition, and you broke even if you bought bouth.

Right now, it's 75% mechanical and 25% setting.

The brunt of the setting is already established and written. The designers need to be focusing on their new mechanics to insure that they're playable, fun, and cover all the important aspects of the setting in a consistant and well-thought way without interfering with the setting too much.

Once all of those rules are down and solid, setting regains the dominant position.