To the best of my understanding, as a line developper Jason Hardy always went by a "rule of cool". I don't see him interested in any way by the legal framework of corporate extraterritoriality, the strategic weaknesses of North America militaries and other background details - in the true meaning of "background": "not in the foreground of the action". What he would care about are swarm of insect superspirits fighting each other, large cities in total blackout, gangs and militias taking over neighbourhoods and the kind of images you would put in a blockbuster's trailer.

On the other hand, some of the freelancers have a quite different take. A lot of them would likely say they care a lot about the setting. From what I saw in past books, it's sometimes written like they care for the setting rather than about it, in that they have their own, very precise vision of what Shadowrun setting is or should be, and push for it. So you see a lot of more or less blatant retcon, details given solely to set in canon a given interpretation of past sourcebooks, events purposedly designed to change or return the setting to its "rightful" state (like a world without nanoforge), supported in the best case by cherrypicking reference material, and in the worst one by sticking to whatever their own recollection is for books that haven't opened for two decades, and discarding the books they don't like as trash.

Overall, continuity with all the existing material, plausibility and proper use of legal and technical concepts take a backseat to driving the plot in the desired direction. I have yet to see who has the credits for Cutting Black, but honestly I don't really expect the plot involving the Corporate Court and the Business Recognition Accords to be grounded in a deep, documented and clever analysis of global trade, international law and the concept of sovereignty. I think they wanted the UCAS to boot out megacorporations and become a patch of urban hellhole, Ares to move south and/or Seattle to become independent, and they made up a plot to justify it, rather than the other way around with a plot and a setting evolving according to it.

I remember circa 2012, books like Conspiracy Theories and Dirty Tricks had an odd "America is the Greatest Nation on Earth" vibe, which at the time made me expect the plot for the fifth edition would see the old US of A return. I have no idea where the current batch of freelancers stand on the political spectrum, but I somewhat get a feeling that some can't stand the idea of the american government(s) surrendering to corporate interests, even in a fictional cyberpunk setting.

...sadly, in RL it is happening. [political comment redacted]

good for the trailer of a movie that you're going to see once, spend maybe a couple of hours on, and then probably not come back to is not the same thing as good for a setting that you're going to be actively involved in for months, years, or even decades.

things that seem fine unless you think about them can work in a one-off. by the time you've realized it was dumb, you've already derived most of your enjoyment from it.

that doesn't work nearly as well for an RPG setting that you'll be revisiting over and over (or, for that matter, if you're looking to build up the marvel cinematic universe or an 8-movie set of harry potter movies). when you have giant dumb things, and you are literally inviting the players to go and explore that giant dumb thing, that giant dumb thing is going to stick out like a sore thumb (though you can certainly make exceptions if the entire game is supposed to be silly, but i wouldn't say that's the case for shadowrun).

i mean, i'm not expecting them to have a team of RL economists on staff to provide a realistic simulation of what a given economic or political structure would do. the industry simply doesn't make enough money for that to be a reasonable expectation. but a little bit of time spent asking whether what you're doing is really obviously full of holes isn't *that* hard to do.

...and, if in an RPG you ty to simulate RL as close and accurately as possible you get the severe mechanics "crunch" like Fantasy Games Unlimited did. Crikey in some cases they used algebraic expressions.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I really don't think ANY nation on Earth would have given corps extraterritoriality. Politicians like their power WAY too much.

Besides if you give away the candy store, how are you going to get the "customers" to come back and give YOU money?

who asked for simulation? i just want them to take a bit of time looking at their plot and asking themselves if it's really super dumb or not. or, better yet, ask someone who didn't work on it and isn't a close personal friend who might lie to spare your feelings, and then don't immediately disregard every negative comment they make as being just that they don't see your genius.

...makes sense. Some of the stuff in 5E was even a bit of a stretch.

The sad part, detailed setting books like we had from 1E through 3E seem to be pretty sparse. I felt 3E fleshed out the world pretty well in the late 50s - early 60s sith all their "Shadows of..." supplements (save for Central and South America as that supplement never saw print before the transition to 4E and the 6 year jump in the timeline with half arsed explanations as to why so many good subplots simply vanished).

I wouldn't think any nation on Earth would let megacorps pay effectively negative tax rates due to industry capture of regulatory bodies and outright bribery of politicans, either, but that happens today.

...+1

No they won't have to ask the UCAS or pay taxes there, for the same reason East Germany did not have to ask West Germany about nuclear deployments or pay taxes. Despite claiming to be the exclusive representation for everything inside the prewar borders, Bonn factually did not exert control over anything east of the wall and accordingly had nothing to say there.




Or at the very least, they came across as assuming US UCAS politics being really important for people in the UCAS and even worldwide, because...uhm...

I don't see why corps would have to do anything about the repealing of the BRA by the UCAS. I mean, that's a Brexit situation:

UCAS: "We're repealing the BRA"
Corps: "Ok, do you repeal all rights or only some of them? Can each corp negotiate new deals? "
UCAS: "..."
Corps: "How do we proceed? We obviously can't do everything overnight, what delay do we have?"
UCAS: "..."
Corps: "Estimations says that we'll need at least 2 years to get everything in order."

To be fair, "oops, new company. We need to do new subplots because we don't have all of the old notes" wouldn't look great in a book. Plus, having loose ends for GMs to latch onto for plots is good for the game.

It'd make sense, except the vast majority of the writers on SR were freelancers at the time and carried over to the new company up until CGL tried to fuck them over.

I was talking about the changeover from FASA to Wizkids (3rd to 4th edition), but your point probably still stands.

...exactly. Killed a campaign arc set in Europe and Russia that I was writing and playtesting for publication (set just after Halley's Comet and SURGE occurred) when they suddenly stopped taking submissions because of the announcement of 4E.

When I picked up System Failure, it literally was that, a toat; failure as a number of plot threads I was working with from both Shadows of Europe and Shadows of Asia were simply no more. The campaign book also included a more detailed setting of the Balkans which I learned was lost in a drive crash and they had to put together something together (hence the couple paragraphs that were pretty sparse for an area that was a rich region for potential runs) because they needed to get it out the door. I sill have a file drawer filled with notes and about half of the illustrations/writing for it along with notes for a future Milwaukee City Book that I was going to playtest and afterwards..

True, a case of inopportune timing, but I remember this board was "lit up" when the 4E announcement was made, speculation of what it might involve, and talk that the Shadows of Latin America setting book (which a lot of people were waiting for) was not going to go to print.

Updated 6E PDFs were made available on DriveThru and Catalyst's site about half an hour ago. Haven't combed through yet to identify the differences.

From my experience, there is no way to reach an agreement over what corporate extraterritoriality plausibly imply.

I mean, the concept of corporate extraterritoriality as it was developped in Corporate Shadowfiles is not based on international customary law, it is based on Lethal Weapons 2 (not what you necessarily mean when you say the cyberpunk genre is rooted in the eighties). There is no plausibility to be found. The entire thing is flawed as its core, because it assumes as a starting point that governments had previously granted each others a level of diplomatic privileges they never had and never plausibly would.

In real life, diplomatic facilities totally remain part of the country they're in. The diplomatic privilege is that the host country is not supposed to search them without asking for permission first. A crime commited inside an embassy can be prosecuted by the host country - what's restricted is the search for evidence and the arrest of diplomatic personnel, not the investigation or the trial themselves, in absentia if needed. If it happened inside an embassy, chances are it involves a foreign national either as a perpretator or a victim, and that is what would allow the other country to prosecute at home under its own law (which is true regardless of where it happens). In Persinger v. the Republic of Iran the Supreme Court specifically ruled that an US embassy was not part of the US territory.

Moreover, there's a reason its called a diplomatic privilege and not a diplomatic right: it can be revoked. If the host country says you move the shop, you're supposed move it. If it says you close it, you're supposed to close it. If you're powerful enough, you can influence the local government and you can wage a war until they rescind the order, but on a legal level, they always have that right.

Then, I think it was Corporate Guide who was the first book where the word "sovereignty" was used. Honestly, if you have no prior knowledge of international law, saying "corporate facilities are similar to diplomatic facilities" and saying "corporate facilities are corporate sovereign territory" look similarly cool and cyberpunkish. But there is no way to reconcile those two statements, because words have a meaning. Actually, saying "corporate facilities are extraterritorial" and "corporate facilities are sovereign territory" just don't work on a semantic level: if the place's part of a territory, then it is not extraterritorial.

Basically, I don't think people can agree on what's plausible or not if they don't first agree on whether corporate extraterritoriality means "cops won't enter facilities and won't arrest shareholders and executives" or "megacorporations are discontinuous nations".

But as a reminder of how much CGL team grasps international law, Dirty Tricks feature the Pueblo nation forced to annex a territory because some of its citizens bought lands in Aztlan.


I was one of the freelancers until shortly before System Failure writing started and I still have a copy of the file labelled "SR world-plot notes.rtf" line developper Rob Boyle transmitted in late 2003 so I can assure there were no shortage of plot.

The shift from FASA to FanPro/Wizkids in 2001 was nothing like what happened to CGL freelancing team in 2010. Yes, people like Mike Mulvihill, Brian Shoner and David Hyatt stopped writing for Shadowrun (incidently, that was also the time David Hyatt was involved in the creation of Firefox and Safari, so there might be a link). But Rob Boyle already was the main author for Brainscan. Steve Kenson, who wrote Dunkelzahn's Secrets: Portfolio of a Dragon, also wrote the Draco Foundation chapter in Dragons of the Sixth World and contributed to the Tir na nOg chapter in Shadows of Europe

To the best of my understanding, the two reasons a five years hiatus was decided were they wanted wireless appliances and, to a lesser extent, the unified magical theory to be the default cases for fourth edition rules, without having to go through a lengthy buildup. You can argue whether these were good changes, but once they decided to make them, there was no perfect solution: having those changes take place overnight would have lacked plausibility (yes, SR5 Matrix, I'm looking at you); build them up after the beginning of the fourth edition would have amounted to publish a 3.5 edition; making System Failure or a second book to cover more years would have required a lof of extra work for little sales and little use - as Blood in the Boardroom had proven before, and System Failure Storm Front proved again, there are few, if any gamemaster who have the actual time to prepare and play a campaign spanning one or two years, and being over with it before the new edition comes out and everyone wants to switch.

...one those "few" here.

Though I realised the work would never see publication (it didn't fit well in the SR world of 2070 as like I mentioned many of the plotlines used from SoE and SoA were poorly explained away or simply handwaved). I still did a final run through of the campaign arc (using 3E with some house rules) which took between eight and nine months of sessions meeting on average, about twice a month (fortunately I had a pretty dedicated group then). I modified the scenario and GM'd with two other groups the last time about eight years ago (still using the houseruled version of 3E as after doing some unrelated test runs in 4E, I went back to 3 as I didn't care for some of the mechanics and features in the new rules).

I am currently re-tooling it for 5E (mainly just the mechanics), but still set in 2061 - 2062.

Hmm, a past superpower expecting other countries to just roll over because its leadership has not come to terms with no longer being a superpower, sounds about right




While I remember several discussions about the statehood of corps, I don't think I ever met anybody who believed that extraterritoriality in Shadowrun was not the pop culture, "not part of the surrounding country's territory" type. So when SR talks about extraterritoriality being "like embassies", to me it is like calling removable magazines "clips". Yes, the usage is clearly wrong, that term means something else. But in the context of SR books the meaning is still clear, even though it's a different meaning than in real life.

I correct. It's Corporate Shadowfiles. Page 19: "The most famous of the two Shiawase Corporations decisions, the ruling declared corporate property sovereign territory not subject to the jurisdiction of the surrounding nation-state."

Yes, Corporate Shadowfiles is the reference here and clearly stated corporate extraterritoriality amounted to movie-like diplomatic status (the books before weren't as clear on this) and everyone gets what it means generally speaking.

What it means is a lot less clear in edge cases like when, say, a megacorporation divest the subsidiary that was nominally granted AAA status, or when a government decide to use its sovereign power to leave the business recognition accords. Otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion now. The books are also far not always clear on which things are specific to the UCAS implementation of the BRA, and how it can be different in the CAS, the Pueblo, Quebec, Germany, Switzerland, just to name a few countries where different rule were introduced, or how it could have been different in the decades between the Shiawase decision and when the BRA established a common template for corporate extraterritoriality.

My point was, if we were discussing the case of diplomatic facility in real life, we could search for actual legal texts and precedents to assert was the likely result ought to be. But since SR corporate extraterritoriality is based on pop culture items, You can argue that Lethal Weapon II (1982) takes precedence over the Persinger v. Islamic Republic of Iran decision (1983), and whether JAG episodes "War Cries" (1995, S1E7) or "Embassy" (1998, S4E2) should be considered part of pop culture when it comes to the portrayal of diplomatic facilities. And if one argue the historical precedents of West and East Germany and China and Taiwan prove nations may favor status quo over enforcing their stance againt a military peer, it would be an equally fair argument to point at, say, the Red Dawn movies, as pop culture strategy. That is why I think it is not possible to reach an agreement over what is plausible or not. The basis for corporate extraterritoriality is a commonly shared belief - it ultimately makes no sense to try to back one particular case with RL facts, when the basis is not to start with. If corporate extraterritoriality is rooted in movies, then there's no reason for governments' answers to it to be rooted in factual geostrategic analysis.

Not that I think we should ignore real events entirely, cause they're still good inspirations from a story-telling perspective, to decide what can happen and how protagonists can interract with it. And it is also possible to discuss the extent and consequences of extraterritoriality with SR sources (like Cotporate Shadowfiles part on pollution, or UCAS takeover of the Renraku arcology).

...one case in point. about two and a half years ago when the Turkish President visited the US, members of his security detail attacked Kurdish protesters (who were several blocks away from the Turkish president's embassy/residence in DC). In all the only people who were actually arrested were four protesters and because while and even though the attacks occured away from the embassy grounds, warrants were issued for eleven of the fifteen security officers in July of that year for committing assault President Erdoğan criticized the United States for. About a year later, prior to a series high level meetings between the Turkish president and then Attorney General Tillerson in Ankara, the DOJ dismissed all charges against Turkish officers involved due to political pressure Contradicting earlier statements by a State Department spokesperson.

Not so much a case of "diplomatic immunity" but still an acquittal of a high level foreign head of state's staff which committed violent acts.

A more clear case of immunity occurred in the UK where the wife of U.S. diplomat was driving on the wrong side of the road struck and killed motorcyclist then left the country. While UK PM requested that her immunity be waived so she cold return to Britain to cooperate in the investigation, she retained her diplomatic immunity which is based on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 which states that a diplomat should not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. Again, this incident didn't occur on or near US embassy grounds but the Convention still covered her negligence.

It worth noting that, while corporate facilities benefit from move-like diplomatic status, it doesn't seem every corp employee should have the equivalent of diplomatic immunity. For a long time, things weren't even that cut and dry regarding how widespread corporate citizenship should be, and if dual citizenship should be the norm or not (I'd say a key here would be how frequent massive layoff are).

In real life, all the diplomatic personnel and their families have diplomatic immunity. But not the local employees (which, depending on the countries and the pay level, may goes from janitor to security guards and clerks).

That being said, corporate immunity for high-level executives and shareholders would make a lot of sense, especially with regards to RL events like the arrest of Huawei VP in Canada. Actually, I think Huawei could hint at how a government could support corporate extraterritoriality: the Chinese would probably enjoy if Canada was not allowed to arrest a Huawei VP, and the US would like China not to be able to influence Huawei operations. Publicly, corporate extraterritoriality would be a solution that pleases everyone, as long as the corporations can convince their own government that, behind the scenes, their commitment to national security is guaranteed. Which, when you look at Shiawase, MCT and Aztechnology, Ares until recently, or Yamatetsu following the move to Russiewas not wrong, is kinda true.

What I was referring to were gamemasters who would have used the plots introduced in Blood in the Boardroom/System Failure/Storm Front once they were published, make all the preparation needed to actually play them (since none of those books contained fully ready-to-play adventures) and get the PC through the entire period covered, before the urge to switch to the new edition becomes too strong.

Case like your, GM writing a campaign whose premise gets torn apart by the next sourcebook, is so much more common. It can actually happen with any book, though obviously the more plot-heavy a book, the more likely it is to disrupt someone's plan. I had to rewrite entire drafts when Corporate Guide came out because the author of the Aztechnology chapter listed Esprit Industries as subsidiary of Aztechnology (the drafts were for extra content for the French and German edition of Corporate Guide, that finally weren't used). I had a campaign around the Cross' Seraphim, based on a submission for Loose Alliances, for which I chose to ignore what Jon Szeto wrote in SOTA:2064 for some minor details, before the whole idea got killed a first time when System Failure came out and crushed Cross and, after I decided to rewrite it, a second time when The Clutch of Dragons, for reasons, featured a section about the Seraphim. Hell, I'm possibly the only guy who would have had a homebrew plot shot down by the history section of Euro War Antiques though I actually did not care and went on with my idea anyway.

...actually I was the author of that scenario and made sure it fit with canon as I was working it up for publication (why the development tok as long as it didas it did) . The only latitude I had was the fleshing out ofg the Balkans (which the editor I was corresponding with encouraged me to do and wanted to see what it). It basically was "torn apart" by Fanpro abandoning 3E for 4E.

Yeah as a player I wasn't pleased with how they handled Cross either. Had a "Fallen Angel" character who really had it in for Lucien and getting back at him for ruining her life was her sole reason for diving into the shadows. As disappointing as it was, I can still deal with that. It's spending upwards of two years carefully wiring and making sure the campaign arc fit within the core as again it was intended for publication that was the real rub.

Removing extraterritoriality is the worst idea you could have because the whole game is about that extraterritorial status. It is because you break a facility that isn't on UCAS territory that:
-the corporation can shoot our dear shadowrunners and keep high défenses without having to face UCAS laws
-that the shadowrunners doesn't get searched actively by the police (since the crime happend on another "country"

exfiltration cease to exist : A corp can't steal a top-notch exec and says "FY-he's just a refugee from your bad treatments"


And there can be so many reason that could explain extraterritorialty (well maybe on surface, but enough to keep yor suspension of disbelief):
-Taxes between countries (you are on Ares ground, wanna sell in UCAS? you pay) which is a fair tradeoff for the freedom a megacorp get on their ground.
-A country lose some other taxes but the megacor has to organize medical care, law, justice and so on... which is basically privatisation.

and a government sneakily attacking a megacorp makes NO SENSE AT ALL (and really, I hope I got that story arc wrong).

Because you would first revoke extraterritoriality, not sneaky attack a megacorp. So their can't be any sneakiness.

It's like:

Donald Trump today : "ok let's bomb Apple, they fuel our economy, our Citizen works for them" "but why, Mr President" "Their lobbists didn't pay enough"


I'm fed of people not understanding that a megacorp is not a person but a (if someone better at English could translate me) : "des forces intangibles et non-concentrés tendus vers le but de faire de l'argent"
A wave of forces directed towards profits?


Regular workers for Aztechnology are not evil blood-mages, just normal people.

When they dropped hints about the Crops and UCAs having a bit of a falling out I was curious.


Admittedly that was a surprise given it is such a big part of the setting, but I was really curious how the UCAS was going to make it stick.



Emphasis mine.

Now that's more like we expected.

IMO the more relevant Latin phrase (well, pair of phrases) when discussing the consequences of the UCAS no longer recognizing the BRAs is de facto and its buddy de jure: West Germany, China, and the UCAS do/did very much want to change the status quo, but what are they going to do in order to get the place they legally consider theirs under their factual control? Every single megacorp is a superpower with nuclear arms, Thor shots and (due to their distributed nature) guaranteed second strike capacities.



How about a "consensual hallucination"?

We should probably remember that strategic decisions of that level are currently taken by a small group of persons, most of them US-born white males with a limited bagage when it comes to international law, diplomacy or military affairs, based on whom among them can get his ideas circulated faster, with one person at the top that loves big flashing explosion and can only give a limited attention to reading the details. I'm talking about the CGL writing team here, obviously.

By suspending the Business Recognition Accords, the Colloton Administration is possibly making the whole thing a lot more dramatic than it needed to be. Canon-wise, California is baring Aztechnology from operating within its borders. The Pueblo had Mitsuhama Computer Technologies evicted for illegal activities. Switzerland and the CAS have BRA implementations that only grants extraterritorial privileges to corporations inside specific areas that are designated, contingented and attributed by the government. So it is actually possible to stay within the BRA and restrict what corporations can do a lot more than what the UCAS previously did.

The UCAS even seemed to be among the countries that had the most extensive interpretation of corporate extraterritoriality. And still it was that country who took over the Renraku arcology, because of an imminent safety hazard for surrounding area (Colloton oughta know).

If I had to justify it as a writer, I'd probably invent some BRA provisions that make Pueblo-like evictions or Quebec-like extraterritorial zones possible only if the change is notified several months in advance, making such solution unsuitable for the emergency at hand (whatever that was, I don't know, I haven't read the book).

Clearly, from the Corporate Court point of view, having the country that went to farthest into deregulation rolling back would send the wrong message to the rest of the world. But so would starting blowing up city blocks as a reaction.

When France tried to restrict corporate operations in 2038, corporations got them to cave in with shadow ops and economic threats (that was before they set the standard with the BRA though). When Canton refused extraterritoriality to Wuxing after Corporate Court rated it AA, it took three months of "accidental" port blockades, power outages, food shortages and arms sales to the neighbouring countries.

Looking back at SR history, my opinion is that the purpose of the actual BRA ought to be the opposite of what most people would believe. The major corporations already had extraterritorial privileges in a large number of countries before the BRA. Maybe they did not had them everywhere, but who needs an international treaty about "continuous, delimited and permanent facility" when you can set up shop in autoritarian states that will simply order cops and judges to leave "our dear friends" alone?
The one thing that the BRA actually brought is the requirement that extraterritorial privileges be only granted to companies rated AA or AAA by the Corporate Court. It effectively took the authority to decide who should be extraterritorial away from the government, to put it solely into the hands of the Corporate Court members. So basically all the other corporations were either forced to register with the Corporate Court and accept its authority as an arbitrage body, or try to do business without having access to extra security, black ICE, corporate passports... making it all the more easier for the big corps to take them over or take them down.
In this regard, having one country like, say, Amazonia or the UCAS, that refuse to grant anyone extraterritoriality is much less of a threat to the system than having an outside corporation becoming powerful enough to obtain equivalent privileges through corruption and intimidation, without registering with the Corporate Court.

But maybe the point of Cutting Black precisely was to herald a new era of corporate imperialism, where the Corporate Court will cease to enforce its old rule that you don't overthrow governments.

...we are getting to a point in RL today that a rule like that could be useful.

Could be, but I'm never, ever going to bet against Hardy being creatively bankrupt.

Interesting phrase ... it can be interpreted two ways: no creativity, or very good at losing money.

Hmm, that's an interesting idea

I assume he's still trying to get rid of Dumpshock. Maybe he finally realized we'll still be here as long as Shadowrun is a thing that exists, so he's trying to kill off the line? Actually, with his competence, that would probably make SR better.

...indeed. Go to the Tabletop forums and if you speak critically of 6E you get attacked (I even received a couple caustic and insulting PMs from one participant whose title is "Catalyst Demo Team") or have your posts removed. The Reddit SR forum mentions that it will not tolerate posts that "Derail threads with CGL hate" (read: direct criticism).

I miss FASA.

And with that, you see why I always donate annually to keep Dumpshock afloat, and encourage others here to do the same.

Do you want to be stuck with official forums, where only propaganda is allowed?

...+1

I doubt it. A coup was attempted several years ago, but some well executed moves thwarted that and it has been silent since. I'm sure that there is still active loathing, but stick and stones...

That sounds like a rule against derailing, not against criticizing CGL. I read the SR reddit occasionally, and they certainly don't pull any punches against CGL there

...but why would they specifically point out criticism of CGL? Why not just say don't derail threads and leave it at that?

Too common / too easy?

Also, hi. Still alive. Good to see familiar faces.

...thank you. Same here.

Been a long time since the 3E days

Fell out of the scene for a while as I wasn't very enamoured with 4E and what they did to all the great intrigue and subplots, and was difficult to find people who still used 3E. Got back into SR a few years ago through a local weekly Missions group where I live which kind of rekindled the old fires.

Currently retooling my old 3E Europe campaign arc to 5E mechanics (still set in the early 2060s) and having to house rule some stuff to give it more the feel of the "old days".

Feels good to be "home" again (though there seems to be this "echo" as of late and the Missions forum seems to have collected a fairly thick layer of dust). Things over on the Tabletop forums began to get a wee bit testy for my tastes, particularly regarding 6E discussions, so I pretty much bailed from there.

Since the 3e days?... Well it's been 12 days since the last session with a modified for 3e version of Mercurial and 2 days until the next... so it hasn't been that long

...for myself it's been about a decade, 2009 - 2010 when I last ran a 3E campaign.

I feel that is something that should be remedied

...yeah, but where I am most lost interest in 3E after 4E was released.

Admittedly one of the downsides of 3E was decking as it was a extremely convoluted and usually resulted in a food and beer run for the rest of players (I actually created Excel Spreadsheets to streamline the process as much as possible). Another was the Magic loss rule from wounds when it came to Adepts as they tended to go headlong into a fight. If it occurred, they lost abilities until they initiated again. Meanwhile spell slingers usually stood back (often in cover) and cast spells as well as had other means to compensate for it. I ended up house ruling that it didn't' apply to adepts (unless of course it was from implants or essence drain such as from a vampire or critter with the power).

Going back to 3E would also mean having to lug 18 kilos or so of books around again whereas my 5E library is all on PDFs. Carrying around a notebook computer is a lot easier on the old aching arthritic shoulders (hoped by now they'd have come out with Enhanced Articulation and Bone Density bioware, one of the good side effects was no more Rheumatoid or Osteo- Arthritis).

4e is the definitive edition for me, and I also have it all available as a digital library. Mine's also in a neatly labeled folder on my Amazon Cloud Drive (along with the rest of my gaming collection in their own folders), so that I can pull it down to any device whenever I need something.

...several things in 4E turned me off.

The main one (as I mentioned previously) was the inclusion of a "luck attribute" which to me gave it more a "video game" or MMORPG feel. In previous editions you got one chance to pull your hoop out of the jaws of certain death, and it was costly. Now you not only could get "extra lives" but buy those points of burnt Edge back to do it again, and again. Yeah, in older editions you could use Karma Pool in somewhat a similar way like to avoid an "oops" or buy extra dice (at a progressively increasing cost) but you really had to think before doing that as once spent, it was spent. A Hand of God required spending all your good Karma and Karma Pool (woe to that spell slinger who had a pile of hard earned karma banked up for raising his/her MA and attaining that next initiation grade).

The Hard Skill Caps. No longer could you be "the best pilot [or whatever] anyone ever saw" just only as good as someone else.

The initiation process which required also increasing your MA before receiving any benefits, this particularly crocked Adepts who depended on power points for improvement. True, there was the alternate rule to buy a PP at 20 Karma without initiating (up to your MA), but when the suggested Karma award for a run was something like 6 - 7 that was still a pretty big expense and you still had to initiate to get Adept Centring.

The changes to decking. Now anyone could hack, (even spell slingers as there was no longer that negative modifier for the awakened going into the virtual world) as all you needed was a commlink a Hot SIM module, a few programmes (all which were relatively cheap compared to a full blown cyberdeck older editions) and a little sill in computers and hacking.

The fact that spell casting had become grossly overpowered.

4th's not perfect, but coming from OWoD, it's very intuitive. And we have extensive house rules for it as well.

...yeah played Changeling the Lost. Pretty weird and the mechanics are strange. Had an autumn Fey who fed off dreams and nightmares, probably one of the darkest characters I ever had.

Even Wednesday, my Black Magic Mystic Adept with Seducer as her mentor spirit wasn't that sinister.

My group was all Vampire: The Masquerade, except for me, who preferred Mage: The Ascension. But we all noticed that the 4e mechanics were a dead ringer for OWoD, which is one of the reasons we got into SR4.