It's been a long time since I've posted on here, but I've been a Shadowrun fan since I was introduced to the game way back in 1992 (unlike most people who came to gaming through D&D, I came to it through Shadowrun). Between the Dresden Files novels, Burn Notice, and Leverage; I've gotten a few of my friends intrigued about Shadowrun after I keep making comparisons between them all, so they're wanting me to run a game. I, of course, immediately went and pulled out my hundreds of Shadowrun books (seriously, I've got almost everything from FASA/FanPro, most of CGL, and probably 2/3 of the novels) and dove back in. Now, I'm torn...

Of the four people willing to play in the game, one loathes 4th Edition with a passion (but also wants a pink mohawk game rather than the heist/infiltration/stealth style game I prefer these days and has stated if that's what I run, he won't play), one probably won't care either way most likely since he hasn't played since we were all in college over a decade ago, and two of them have never played Shadowrun before. I might be able to get a couple more players who also don't have much experience with the system.

The last game I played in (not ran) was a 4th Edition game and that's what I've read the most of recently. 4th Edition is definitely easier to learn for new players, and I've even got a massive set of 6-sided dice I've painted the pips on so hits/glitches are easy to identify. However, I'm really not a fan of the edition personally. I feel that a lot of the nuance of previous editions was obliterated in the desire to copy White Wolf and I feel that many of the decisions made by CGL have taken the game world and its fiction far away from what drew me to the game and makes me still drag out my books every year or so and read through the lot of them (no offense to anyone who likes the new direction, it's just my opinion).

I'd love to run a 3rd Edition game, but I'm way out of practice with the system. I don't trust myself to run it for players who know the rules, let alone teaching it to new players. However, I think I'm one of maybe a dozen people in the world that ever really understood the pre-4th Edition decking rules that didn't have a hand in writing them. I've been running a Pathfinder game with little work even though I hadn't ever played 3.5 and my 3rd Ed experience was around 6 years old when I picked up the book, so I'm pretty sure I can get back into the swing of things quickly. Also, I'm itching to run the published adventures I've got stacked up I never got to run because my old players never wanted to bother with things like "plot" and "story" beyond reasons to kill this NPC or not kill that NPC until they paid, then killing them. Something tells me that I'll have to do a lot more work converting Harlequin, Missing Blood, Dreamchipper, and Double Exposure to 4th Ed than converting them to 3rd Ed.

So I'm going to ask you guys for advice...which edition do you guys think I should go with to introduce a bunch of dungeon-crawlers to Shadowrun? Should I go for the simpler but not as compatible with 4th Edition, or the more complicated for new players but more detailed 3rd Edition rules? I'm not expecting you guys to make the decision for me, just help me work through the arguments in case I'm missing something...

I totally dig the loss of nuance, as you put it, for 4th ed. If you feel up to the task, tinker it a bit. I'm breaking down the whole spirit thing to the way it used to be (Hermetics summon and bind Elementals, while Shamans can call a spirit, if they are in the appropriate domain) and a whole lot more. I want the flavor that made me love Shadowrun, but I really do like the dice pool instead of variable TN. I've made it clear to my players that I'm doing these tinkers, and they trust me, at least in that regard.

Also, and it's mostly a pet peeve of mine I'm sure, your one buddy needs to understand you are the one running. Sure, it's everybody's game, but if you would really like to go with 4th ed., don't let his obstinance get in the way of that.

How will you handle all the other traditions?

It's more my own prejudice against 4th Edition than my friend's. The problem I'll have with him either way is that the last time I ran a Shadowrun game with him, we were playing it like...you know how when you get bored with the storylines in GTA and just start causing as much chaos as possible? That's how we played (or rather my friends played and I went along with it) back in the day. I'm not sure if it's because I'm older or because I've gotten much more into the plotlines of the Sixth World, but I really want to play a "professional" game, where everyone is focused on the mission and...well, I swear that Leverage is a Shadowrun TV series that just happens to take place pre-Awakening. And that's the style of game I want to run.

Welcome back Abstruse!

First, I want to reiterate what jaellot said about ditching the dude with the shitty attitude. It sounds like he's acting rather childish about it and personally I would tell him to kick rocks.

Second, I don't think I've heard anyone put it as succinctly as you did: a loss of nuance is a great way to describe the change in quality between SR3 and SR4. I myself have played all editions, including a very heavy stint of SR3 (about twice a week for 4 or 5 years). SR3 will always be near and dear to my heart, but personally I think the benefits of SR4's streamlined and (mostly) unified core mechanics outweigh the loss of nuance. Besides, I think as a GM with a solid understanding of the game world you can inject a lot of that nuanced feeling into your narrative without having the rules quagmire we saw at the end of SR3.

I also would note that as a GM I have found that SR4 has a kind of versatility that allow for a lot of stuff I used to have to house rule. I can't count the number of times I have seen a rule and thought "hey I used to do it that way back in SR3 when there were no rules for that."

So yeah, I guess I would recommend SR4.

I'm guessing the same way they were handled in 3rd? Not sure if there are any brand new ones in 4th or not.

They're pretty much the same ones as 3rd, but it doesn't really matter as much since all the traditions feel very...samey to me (is that a word?) Because there's no longer a real fundamental mechanical difference between the traditions, it's pretty much a roleplaying choice at this point more than anything else which bothers me since I really liked the very different mechanics - even if it did add more complexity to the game.

If you like the different mechanics you are pretty much out of luck with SR4. The system is not really equipped to use domains in the way SR3 and earlier did. First of all no magician gets more than five types of spirits, so you lack spirits for many domains or the shaman simply always summons spirits any type of spirits because you can always call an area a domain for any type of spirit: Air is most likely all around the shaman, water as well if only in the body of the shaman himself, he is always near earth, man has populated the earth so that should not be a problem and everything is a domain for beasts as well, just look hard enough and you will find all sorts of animals.

Hermetics have another problem, if they are not allowed to summon spirits the way shamans do. In SR3 the Elementals for Hermetics were more powerful IIRC, now they get the same spirits except for the beast/fire ones.

The mechanical difference is still there but it is more subtle. It is in the drain stat. Shamans are generally able to bind more spirits whereas Hermetics get to use more foci at the same time. Metamagic techniques, while not exclusive to certain traditions will probably further differentiate two magicians mechanically.

Yes, the biggest difference between two magicians is the roleplaying, but is that really so bad?

To me, yes. Ever been in a Pathfinder/D&D 4e argument? Know how people complain all the classes feel alike now? That's how I feel with 4th edition Shadowrun vs. 3rd Edition (which is odd, I'm the opposite in D&D). That's the only way I can describe it. It doesn't make 4th Edition any worse or 3rd Edition any better...it just doesn't feel like Shadowrun to me.

However, I think I'm going to go with 4th Edition. It's going to really suck trying to update all those old modules and hide some of the plot twists in the Shadowrun world from the players so they can be surprised when they're locked in the Renraku Archology or when the bugs take over Chicago or when Dunkelzahn gets assassinated since it's in the friggin' core rulebook, but I think it'll be far easier to teach 4th Edition rules (thus making it more likely I'll get to run a game that lasts long enough to see all those events) than 3rd Edition.

Oh you make it even more difficult for yourself, running SR2-3 events with SR4 rules. Good luck with that.

It would probably be easier to either follow the plot from SR4 (emergence, ghost cartels etc.) or just create your own. But that is just my opinion.

If I may be permitted a tangent, why do you prefer D&D4?

I...think I'll refrain from speaking of the SR4 plotlines and my opinion of them because it involves a lot of ranting about certain people who work or previously worked for FanPro/CGL who I know are frequenters of this board and just keep it to a simple "No sir, I don't like it."


As far as D&D 4e, I'm almost always the DM of the group. 4e has a streamlined, balanced, and very plug-and-play design when it comes to running a game that makes things insanely easy. And the skill system is compact yet flexible enough that I always know what skill covers what actions. Funny thing is that I'm currently running a Pathfinder game and not a 4e game, so I don't have any hate for previous systems. I just prefer 4e.

I'm not, really. My gang is pretty content with the core traditions, though they do go through the other stuff (metamagics, spells, powers...). It's probably one of numerous enabling tendencies on their parts that keeps me being a lazy GM. If some one expresses an interest, I'll get on it, or if I need it for an antagonist/NPC sort of thing.

Aaaaand having actually gone ahead and unpacked my books, I've decided screw it, I'm playing 3rd Edition no matter how much harder it is since the only thing I have to convert is the dungeon-crawl Matrix runs into a security sheaf (which will take me maybe 5 minutes a pop). It'll take more work, but it'll make things a lot easier on me overall since it feels more like Shadowrun.

Fine choice, you can't go wrong with the classics.
I've tracked down the first episodes of Leverage, most US TV series never get a run here so it's good to hear of a decent one, Cheers.

Not only do I think that it's Shadowrun: The Series, but the showrunner John Rogers (also a prolific RPG writer and current scribe behind the D&D comic series from IDW) didn't deny my interpretation when I asked him about it on his webpage. He didn't admit it probably due to a combination of legal reasons and the fact that mainstream audiences won't know what the hell Shadowrun is, but he also didn't deny it and said that he was a fan o fthe game.