I don't usually post with critiques on the books, but I just wanna add my opinions to the list.

First off, I enjoyed this a lot more than the original Street Legends. This book felt a lot more like what I'd expect a bunch of shadowrunners writing up their peers would be, there was a lot less pie-eyed adoration this time around. The write-ups varied quite a bit in style and tone, which gave it much more distinctive voices than past supplements. I liked that, please keep it up.

Bull, what you did with Kane and /dev/grrl was awesome! You can add my voice to the chorus singing your praise, so long as you promise to do her write-up as well. Also, please give my kudos to whoever did the write-up on Slamm-O! It genuinely pissed me off, I felt like one of my friends was being attacked and I couldn't wait to jump on the boards and start flaming Clockwork! It read like a good forum troll and the fact the author managed to get me emotionally invested in four short pages speaks wonders of their skill. Please, please, please get more of that into the books. Too often the source books from other games are sterile and clinical, and while SR has always managed to be something more, lately some of that spark has been missing for me. The shadow talkers and their crazy personalities and ideas are my favorite part of the books, in fact it's where I get my more oddball ideas from (For the record, Conspiracy Theories was my favorite book of the last year)!

Speaking of oddball ideas, I'd like to make a request for a future supplement: Have Plan 9 and Snopes write each other's biographies. (Unless they've already been done somewhere else and I've just missed it, of course.) I can promise you, the thought of having those two duking it out to see who can find the best tidbit to prove the other one is wrong and/or insane would be worth the cover price of ANY source book!

As far as stats go, my knowledge of game is no where good enough to critique builds, but I do have a small annoyance with languages in the stat blocks. I would rather have them order by skill level (with native languages first), rather than alphabetical. Of course, that's assuming they've actually been sorted (Hard Exit), are not buried in the Knowledge Skills (Damien Knight) or are even listed at all (I have a VERY had time believing The Smiling Bandit knows no languages!). When reading a block like Mihoshi Oni's, it feels a lot more natural to read it as "Japanese N, English 4, Russian 3" than "English 4, Japanese N, Russian 3." Besides, I should be able to tell at a glance what a character's primary languages (anything above rating 3) are without having to read the whole block.

One last thing: Fire whoever approved the art for Slamm-O! The art, while quite good looking, looks like someone's Shadowrun LARP costume. A CD-R hanging from his backpack in 2073? Why does his arm computer need a vial of blue-glowy liquid? Is it a battery, some sort of liquid cooling, or the SR4A version of a case mod? And an electronic monocle? Seriously? WHY THE FUCK DOES HE HAVE A MONOCLE WHEN HIS STAT BLOCK CLEARLY STATES HE HAS CYBER EYES? --takes a few deep breaths and continues-- Sorry. That's the condensed version of the five-minute tirade my wife got to hear. Seriously though, whoever came up with the art description (you guys do do that, right?) and/or the person that approved the final art dropped the ball on this one.

Okay, back to lurking now...

He's overclocked his CommLink so much it needs liquid cooling?

I mean, you have to get that extra FPS in Miracle Shooter after all.

Do you try to find reasons and explanations for everything?

My brain does not SHUT UP! Ever.

I have to keep it occupied or else it tries to eat me.

So, yes. It goes hand-in-hand with my smart ass remarks and my pithy sayings.

We few, we happy few...

I know, you'd all be happier if my brain ate me...

Nah, it should just do what it's supposed to do.

Yeah, independently of their correctness the inconsistent stat blocks are really bugging me in recent books. Not just in terms of sorting but also the level of detail is extremely inconsistent, some writers like rather broad strokes and others put down every shoelace. And then there is "specialization guy", who puts in a Specialization for every single skill on the list. If there was a skill for peeing, he would let us know whether the character prefers standing or sitting

The Stats for Miles Lanier in Street Legends gives his Charisma as a 4, but in Corporate Intrigue he suddenly has only a Charisma of 3. If this was intentional since Street Legends seems to have occured after Corporate Intrigue, then all is good. If this is simply something that was overlooked, then I'd say more careful attention needs to be done when posting the same character in mulitple books.

That one was completely my fault as I'm the only one who handled those stats for either book. His Charisma was initially a 3, Jason thought that was a little on the low side so I made it a 4 for Street Legends, but when I was doing that Corporate Intrigue adventure and I must have copied them from the first draft of my SL chapter before the change happened and I guess nobody caught it during the editing process for CI.

D'oh!

in other words... he earned some karma in CI and raised his Charisma for Street Legends.



Bull

Uh, that's cause specs are Karma-efficient, and there's just no reason not to have them?

Specializations are also a good short-hand for saying "This is the style of weapon/vehicle/skill that this character prefers to use". Not everything needs a specialization, but there's no drawback to having one, so there's no reason not to have them.

Since we have some of the writers etc in this thread, I have a question:

When writing stats for existing characters, is there any research done regarding stats published in material for earlier editions?

I know there were suggestions for stats for Lanier and Villiers in 'First Run', for example, and I think there were stats (or at least suggestions) for Buttercup in 'Blood in the Boardroom'.

There were stats for Martin de Vries from back in 2nd edition. They were virtually worthless, except to point out some areas of emphasis. I wound up rebuilding him from the ground up, and according to some analysis I've been able to do since then, I might have shortchanged him a bit.

I am torn on the Harlequin write up.

I hated the in universe write up. It didn't realy seem to have a reason to be there. No one was conveying anything about him, and the "big secrets" mentioned by the NPCS (that us the readers have known for decades) don't realy make any sense in context (without once again having a meta-reader knowledge). But the biggest offense is that an NPC is now cannonicaly the one who went on Harlequin's Back. This section is completely unusable as an in game document if your PC's did the adventure. It leaves a realy bad taste in my mouth and deprotagonizes the PC's.

On the other hand the Stat write up I think was just about perfect. It made sense, the stats were just about where i would expect them to be. I just wish all the rest of the Immortals/dragon write ups fit as well around his. (We know he is THE best swordsman, and in the top tier of casters, behind maybe Alachia, Ainia, & a few Greats).

Yeah, pretty much. : P




Of course I looked at the suggested stats in First Run. They were my starting point.

Ditto for Harlequin and his suggested stats in Harlequin and Harlequin's Back.

It's also worth mentioning that, as a baseline for statting a character, such suggested stats are generally vague enough as to be non-existent, even before you look at the finnicky rules differences between editions.



Hi, if it's alright I'd like to quote part of my post on this topic from over on the official forums, because deprotagonizing anyone is the last thing I wanted or intended.

I was not talking about efficiency ingame, I was talking about layout consistency.

I recall somewhere (on this board or the main one) that the run Bull went on was not suppose to be the exact same run as in Harlequin's Back.

It's all good. I can easily see it as an increase in his Charisma via karma. It's not a problem unless the stats start going all over the place.

Um...no. This has already been asked and answered elsewhere.

I don't read the SR4 forums, so i wouldn't know. That being said I'll have to reread it when I get home, but it certainly seemed like it was describing HB, espescialy the exchange between Frosty & Bull. The fact that I'm not the only one that came to the same conclusion lends credence to the thought that the write up could have been clearer.

Thats not to say I didn't like the write up. I liked the plotline with the former Ally spirit & I realy liked the stats as I feel they are the only IE/Dragon stats that reflect the way the character has actualy been described.


Edit: I let my wife read the write up. She was part of the group of PC's I ran through the adventure. She does not read game books, nor does she read game fiction. Her only interaction Harly ever is the HB adventure I ran half a decade ago. Her immediate response was "Thats Bullshit. I was the one that did that!" Thats what I'm talking abotu when i say it was deprotagonizing.

Like I said, I'm not "hating" I genuenly liked the write up, and thought the stats were spot on. Just wasn't fond of that one aspect.

As I said over there, the home game I told Devon about that he based some of this on was NOT Harley's Back. HB was actually the run Bull did that, as payment, Harlequin got Bull & Family out of Chicago

That said, take it however. *shrug* or ignore it. or simply take it to mean Bull's crazy and making drek up.



I haven't statted up anyone that had stats from earlier editions, at elast not officially, so... Nope. haven't paid attention

Bull, obviously, had stats from earlier editions as my PC. But I reworked him a fair bit. He was mostly played during 2nd edition, with a little bit at the beginning of 3rd. He was well over 600 Karma in 2nd edition (Karma wenta LOT farther back then), though I'm not certain his actual karma total, as I didn't keep track of it for a long time. 600-700 is a very lowball estimate. For several years we played at least twice a week, usually 3-4 times a week Anyway, converting him to 4th was tough because of the way numbers and stats changed a bit.

Kane didn't have stats, but I tried to look through the various books and figure out what he was capable of based on the Shadowtalk and built him from there. Kane was a pain but his information is incredibly scattered. It took me forever to lock down the original Shadowtalk where Kat was mentioned, because it was in the original Shadowrun Companion for 2nd edition. I didn't even remember there WAS Shadowtalk in that book! Fortunately the user FastJack on the official SR4 boards has a couple PDF files he keeps updating, one of which has a list of every Shadowland and Jackpoint poster, along with page references for every post they've made.

Bull

Well, Bull would be a special case as few consumers would have access to his stats

Awesome to get to play one character for so long though - in our campaigns, no PC has ever lasted beyond 350 karma before dying or being retired for one reason or another.

It is a bit tricky converting between editions - I've had a whole bunch of NPCs and former PCs that needed converting at one time or another, so I'm all too familiar with the problems involved. Some things are next to impossible to 'get right' due to rules changes etc.



My 'problem' with re-statted official characters is that since I have good memory, and usually remember where (and if) characters have appeared before, I usually end up checking the info when it's a character that I'm likely to use or reference - sometimes I've noticed discrepancies in the way of missing skills, or descriptions of abilities and suggested stats not matching up to the write-up. Since I have everything published in english for SR since year one (and a number of things in other languages as well), it's sometimes too easy to find such discrepancies.

The same goes for art and physical descriptions, which is one reason I didn't particularily like some of the art in the Legends' books...

Oh, and good to know about FastJack! Wish I had the tenacity for something like that...

I should add that I rarely have any problems with any of the write-ups (beyond mistakes or stuff that doesn't fit the rules - but I've done a fair share of editing, I know how it can be).

Yeah. Sure. Rub my face in it.

BASTARDS THE LOT OF YOU!

The stats from your write-ups have so far been the ones I've had the least problems with (I'm exempting Mr Surehand here... ) so I more or less assumed you do your research, but it's good to know =)

My only problem to date with the write-up on Lanier is his Leadership skill of 4 - I would have expected a 'Tactics' specialization there

I feel your pain. I never get to play Shadowrun. : (

I've never actually played either, apart from a short game or two on dumpshock. GMing is another story, however...

As a general rule, to prevent preferential treatment, Mary Sues, personal vendettas, and annoyed fans, it's usually best to simply leave developer characters out of the game world altogether. It's not Bull's fault and it wasn't Bull's choice that this happened, and lots of people have been clamoring for things like this, but in my opinion, there should be developer's games and canon games, and never the twain shall meet. It means some more work, but it prevents issues like this entirely.

I'm running Shadowrun right now!

Was just reading HB and the Harlequin entry and i have to say there are many differences, so i'm really confused how people think that it's talking about HB.

Well, the get-up is basically the same - especially to people who played HB years ago and haven't read it since.

Bulls account in short:


Harlequin's Back:


The difference is only in the year of the run, and the nature of the sacrifice, and who asks for it - but Bull's account can certainly fit the events of HB, if he chooses to put the blame on H for not stepping up. Most people won't immediately remember which year HB takes place, and which year Chicago closed.

I can't remember off the top of my head who actually wrote the H article, but maybe the person never played H or H is Back or hasn't played it in a long time. Then when Bull described the third run he just went with it without much thought to assuring there was enough difference that peopel wouldn't get confused.

I want to play H.

Well, first we get the tentacles...

Is the file per chance available for download somewhere?
Or may be made such?

There's a running thred over at the SR4 Forums, and he updates the file every time a new book is released, and you can always find the latest file in the first post:

http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=58.0

(Sorry, I was in a hurry early and totally forgot to link it. Meant to! )

what

I was theorizing that when describing the third run perhaps not a lot attention was given to making sure it appeared different than the H is Back run becuase either the writer didn't play the adventure and was unaware of how similar they were, or the writer had played the adventure so long ago that he simply didn't realize how similiar they would appear to people who didn't realize there was a third run Bull went on.

Also possibly just not enough attention was given to make sure this appeared like a different run for some reaosn I can't think of right now.

So I'm probably wrong...completely wrong.

I am the writer which I thought was clear at this point hence the "what".

Anyway, I have never played or run Harlequin's Back, but I've used elements of it in my GMing, ages ago, read it in its entirety a few times and even reread select parts for this assignment.

My intent was to describe events that were eerily similar to but still noticeably different from those of Harlequin's Back, so that the reader could interpret it however they preferred. I was actually trying to create speculation as to whether or not it was the same adventure; clearly I should have differentiated it further, as some people have just assumed that I was saying point blank that Bull's team and only Bull's team were the canonical participants of HB. : )

Sounds like the intent was to say that Horror incursions happened more often than shown.

Thank you, it's a really useful list for fan supplement writing.

Yeah sorry I knew you were the writer, I just couldn't remember your name (either one) off the top of my head and didn't have time to check. 18 Credit Hours, 30 hours of work, and trying to work on a Shadowrun game.

With that said I very much enjoyed the write up and didn't see any problems with it.

No worries. : )

Likewise. Aside from that one session in high school, sixteen years ago...truly, 'tis a potent game, to have made a fan (and consumer) out of me ever since.

I was a huge Shadowrun fan for several years BEFORE I ever got to actually GM/play a game of it. I was initially hooked by the amazing SNES game, and then I just spent years reading the second edition rulebook and the novels, waiting, wishing, and hoping I'd actually get to play one day. I was also like freaking ten or something at the time, of course.

/nerd among nerds.

I don't know how that happens. No matter what's going on in my life, what subculture I'm running with, how new I am in town, through homelessness, fatherhood, overemployment, underemployment, I've always had a Shadowrun game, since 1989. How can you want to play the game, but then not play it? I'm not disrespecting, I just don't comprehend how it occurs.

...for one, you need at least one - preferrably more - other people also interested in playing.

Like you, I've played more or less constantly since 1990, but I'm blessed with a fair number of SR-interested friends that live close by.

Bastards the lot of you...

*Curls up in my corner, rocking back and forth, crying*

For me, it's a recurring failure to be friends with people who are anywhere near as into SR as I am, compounded by a failure to feel comfortable playing the game with people who aren't my friends. When I can play, it's usually 2-4 people, I almost never get a full "team" together. I also live in an area where there's little to no gaming subculture available that I'm plugged into.

Anyway, I am ridiculously jealous of you. I think that if I'd been playing Shadowrun regularly for the past 10+ years, I'd be a much, much happier person over all. (In 1989, I was three years old.)

I should be playing tomorrow, so at least there's that to be happy about. Well, I mean, GMing. I literally NEVER get to PC.