I think the fear of the name change of the decker/rigger (to which I
think is a bad idea) stems from the fact that it is one of Shadowrun
cornerstone unique elements. If such elements of this caliber are
being blatantly disregarded than what kind of catastrophic butchering
of the Shadowrun universe can we expect? I mean, yes, Shadowrun has
its' flaws and an overhaul might just be only thing that can fix these
problems, but to approach it from the stand point of lets just make a
new game out of it is BS. Originality is key here, and Shadowrun has
fantastic roots and a long running background story and last I checked
that meant something to role-players. In a sea of sameness, uniqueness
is a beacon of light. To loose the terms decker and or rigger to a term
so generic and overused as hacker is a travesty, now if they were lost
to something original I don’t think the name change would have
encountered such an opposition.

Here’s example that might help those of you still not getting the
point. What if the writers of the Transformers decided one day that in
order to make it more clear to children that energon cubes are energy
storage devises they changed the name to robo batteries, how would you
feel?

Yeah, it would have been nice to get a new name on that one. Any suggestions?

"Decker"?

~J

I wonder if they're getting rid of the R/C Deck as well. I'd really like something original, and decker just isn't it, but I'm not really so attached to names that I couldn't live with it.

If you want, I'm sure no one will break your jaw if you keep calling them deckers. I mean, it doesn't make sense to, on a purely rational level, since they don't "deck" any more, or carry "decks" any more... but if you (IC or OOC, as far as I care) want to wax nostalgic about it and call them deckers, I don't think anyone's gonna call the cops.

And it's very logical that some characters in the game world would still do so, as well... I'm sure there are a few plots and concepts that one could easily weave, old school vs new school style.

It makes a lot more sense than it does to return the term to hackers. Terms stick even when inappropriate; RAID was a Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks even back in the days when they very much were not inexpensive, and the acronym has since been altered to Independent. Likewise, many people claim that there is a RAID 0, despite plain striping having no redundancy. White chocolate is still called chocolate despite having no cocoa solids. Audio is still said to have "tracks" even when being composited entirely digitally. Many people call analgesics anesthetics. I could go on all day.

~J

Which is more why hacker would never have gone away...

What about rigger? Just let that one slump off with narry a thought?

Right. Which is why it's no big deal either way. The new "official" name will be hackers, but it's not like that's getting policed or anything. Call it what you want to call it. If you say "decker," people are still gonna know what you're talking about.

I, for one, welcome our new SR4 masters.

I have yet to see evidence that Rigger is going away, but I would be similarly upset if it did. I consider it somewhat spurious to apply the same argument of insufficient evolution to a sixty-year gap as to a five-year gap, though; sixty years ago, a "dude" was a dandy, a fastidiously sharp dresser or a fop.

~J

Um, 60 years ago, a dandy was a fag. Ever since the trial of Oscar Wilde quite some time prior, dandies were homosexuals as far as anyone using the term was concerned.

Hum... "masters" - mad master skillz in the 'trix or on the fly. Masters everywhere cloggin' up the grids. Nah, to used, I guess.

Joke, m'kay?

Ah, sorry. I plead exhaustion

Ah well. I wouldn't mind a new name, I could see that, but turn-of-the-century kitsch being the basis for the new breed of technofetishist just sticks in my craw.

~J

Let me put it this way: I am not seeing anything to suggest that dandy was a synonym for homosexual at the time.

Not that it has any bearing on my original point.

~J

It wasn't a synonym. That's too specific and too simple. But after his trial and for some time afterwards, as far as the public was concerned, dandyism went from social fad to solid indication of homosexual tendencies/gross indecency, etc. Its social impacts were pretty far reaching: consider that for a very long time in this country, if you were a well dressed man who cared about fashion and grooming, you were ascribed effeminate qualities and pretty much guaranteed to be made fun of for being a homosexual at some point. Consider the issues raised by the metrosexual movement, etc.

But, really, this is getting absurdly off topic, and you're right about it not really being very germane.

Anyway, as I've said before, I can sort of buy it as a revival thing within the storyline, but personally, I have no problem with it not being very believable if it's righting a very unbelievable, heavily 80s slant in the old terminology that would not be fixable any other way. I'm not willing to wait through 20 ingame years just to get away from a goddamn flock of seaguls.

A quick note: as GunnerJ pointed out, William Gibson originated the term "decker" in Neuromancer. Interestingly, the only reason he didn't call Case a "hacker" was because, at the time, he was unaware of the term (check out the interview on Everything2.com for details). Had Gibson done his homework in the first place, deckers would be hackers already. Thppt.

--Gonzo

No, had he done his homework deckers would be crackers, and we could all be making lame white-boy jokes.

~J

Words evolve. Today, to the general populace and especially the media (who would be responsible for spreading the terminology around to the main stream anyway), "hacker" applies to any type of computer criminal. It doesn't matter what they like to call themselves. It's what everyone else calls them that matters.

Unless you want to start getting in arms about the use of every single "class" name in the game (especially mages -- who the hell would call themselves mages? that's so 1970's D&Dish), the use of a popular term that perfectly describes the character type seems to fit well. It certainly fits better than "decker" ever did, in that you won't ever have to explain to a newbie what a "hacker" does for a living. At least not in general terms.

Yes, I was whinging. The essence of my whinging is this:

The identity of Shadowrun lies not in its rules (which are imperfect but pretty functional), nor in its basic structure (Near-future fantasy criminals, if you will). It is in the specific aesthetics and idiosyncrasies that are its core. Deckers, street samurai, riggers, mages and street shamans, yes, are terms grounded in a somewhat quaint cyberpunk motif of the late 80s (as are of course many of the other motifs of Shadowrun). Whether or not 'Decker' is an accurate term is beside the point; it is one grounded in both the fiction of the world, and the sentimental nature of longtime fans. It is not distinguished by being a near-future-fantasy hybrid; there are plenty of alternatives if that's all that you require to play.

I can see no aesthetic or practical reason to change the term from "Decker" to "Hacker," other than to either distance the new game from the old, or to make a crass appeal in favor of new players over old. I say crass, because I am not convinced that "Decker" is a particularly difficult or off-putting term.

Yes, I am extrapolating from this, and from comments in the forum by a number of people, including writers, a general lack of sentimentality for the game Shadowrun, both its rules and its heritage. If it makes economic sense to completely discard that old aesthetic for a more 'modern' one, then I guess I can't really offer a practical argument against it; but if that aesthetic is dropped, I feel pretty safe in saying that yes, it's not the same game.

But it's still rock'n'roll to me...

I don't believe that Shadowrun's aesthetic should be dropped. I think, much like technology and culture of the 1980s, it should evolve. The 1980s became the 1990s and the 2000s, and, forseeably (presuming the continuation of time moving forward, instead of deciding one day to start moving backwards or off in some dimension we have not the ability, with our frail mortal minds, to comprehend), it will continue evolving as time progresses. Cyberpunk, so popular then as a genre of science fiction, has evolved into the popular Post-Cyberpunk genre, with a more intrinsic spiritual and organic, rather than technological and economic, theme.

Sufficiently advanced technology, so Post-Cyberpunk goes, is indistinguishable from magic (or a yo-yo). It's still technology, but it is so intrinsic and human that it becomes part of humanity, as much a tool or level of control as a social meme or natural force. I'm hoping for, and working towards, a unique Post-Cyberpunk evolution of Shadowrun rooted in the fact that it offers a unique scenario wherein, while technology and magic start to become somewhat indistinguishable, there actually is magic out there, evolving and developing both alongside and intertwined with technological evolution.

What Shadowrun could become, given what it is, is something unique and fascinating in a roleplaying setting. It's my hope that it achieves this evolution, rather than stagnating in a rigidly defined genre based upon a future that did not transpire and an era that's in many ways as hokey and old-fashioned in current times as the free-love post-WW2 hippie movements were to people living in the 1980s. My vision of Shadowrun is evolution, not retention of the status quo. Stagnation is just a manifestation of looming death for the game, in my mind, and I've grown far too attached to it to endorse a path with limited future and no realization of innate potential.

If that's what people want to play, then fine, whatever. But I don't see the 'evolution' as being evolutionary at all. Post-cyberpunk evolved from our own changing expectations; post-cyberpunk futures do not evolve out of cyberpunk ones, anymore than a cyberpunk future would be an evolution of a Buck Rogers future. It's not at all an organic shift; it's forcing upon Shadowrun what people think it should be, rather than what it is. Thus, it's not the same game; it's a Frankenstein's monster of two different genres.

If that's what game people want to make/play, then they should just scrap it all and start over.

If you haven't been paying attention for the past several years, right now it's a terrible Frankenstein's monster of various genres. It hasn't stuck too honorably to the mores and themes of classic cyberpunk since back in the days of SR1. This is a result of people introducing their new, current-era-influenced, ideas to the genre as they get their turn to say how events unfold and how rules are written. It's already happening, and preserving the sacred cyberpunk nature of Shadowrun would require reaching back in time a few years and declaring all further events beyond that point to be examples of alternate-universe, "What if Superman's capsule landed in the USSR?" kind of things.

What I'm suggesting is that this evolutionary tendency be admitted and embraced, rather than people trying to deny it's happened and will continue happening. If I wanted to play something commensurate with the pure cyberpunk vision of Shadowrun people have been talking about so nostalgically, I'd probably stick with SR1, at least in terms of world events and technologies. Trying to create new material from existing cultural memes does not lend itself naturally towards developing further along the Cyberpunk path, as that path is rooted in the past, and it's very hard for people to recover the spirit of that era and channel it toward new creative endeavors.

I think it's better to accept that the spirit of an era is largely passed, when that era itself comes to a close (or, more accurately, evolves into a new era), than to try and recapture it, and do so badly. Shadowrun, in particular, is difficult to do this with. People want to flout the advancement of technology and its ease of use, since that is the spirit of the current era. They have difficult restraining that impulse, and they have to in order to preserve the Cyberpunk feel, since all the technological advancements since then have largely eroded the grim, grit-and-polished-chrome feel that 1980s cyberpunk sprouted from.

But, you know, I could be completely wrong.

Aww, come on. Shadowrun has moved further and further away from cyberpunk allready. It wont be that dramatic. SR4 is just making it so that the technology in the game is impressive by today´s standards, really. (so what´s the matrix again? It´s a bbs network in 3d. Oh, ok. Big deal) All the other stuff has allready been changed. Have you not noticed that the world view is entirely different in recent Shadowrun books? The direction all the plots and sourcebooks has taken Shadowrun in, has always been highly coherent with the common views and ideas of the time they were written. A genre shift is on it´s way, but we´re allready more that halfway there.

<<<edit>>> Beaten to the point. Must have been a good point.

It would be convincing argument too, if I actually liked most of the recent products. But since I've been of the opinion that the products have been sliding since around the time Mulvihill left, I've had to conclude that either the quality of writing has suffered, or that post-cyberpunk is just a lot less interesting than cyberpunk.

I obviously cannot demand fidelity to pure cyberpunk of course; the element of fantasy alone would prevent that. But it is the element that seems most lacking, currently. So that's what I focus on.

Heh. Quality of writing suffered when Mulvihill left. Oh man.

Sounds like someone thinks semantics and aesthetics are synonymous. J/K

Sceptical Clown ... if you dislike all the recent, post-Mulvihill, writing, just continue to play SR2. No offense meant, but that seems to be what you're interested in. You can also use Cyberpunk's regional and adventure books if you need them (I can recommend the chromebook conversions - while they have some garbage in them, they have a large heap of useful stuff, too).

If you dislike SR4 because it's post-cyberpunk, that's the best option for you. Leave the Post-Cyberpunk SR4 to people who like it, or people who at least can accept it (like I hope I will).

And for the record, I do sympathise sympathise with your notion. But then again, SR never was true-blue cyberpunk to begin with, it was always less gritty than CP2020. If anything, the Tir and the whole notion of magic and nature-minded shamen and Indians are radically opposed to the ideals of cyberpunk according to Gibson. shadowrun was a chimera of fantasy, cyberpunk and (to a degree) HKAT from the beginning. Thus, the chimera that is Shadowrun cannot betray it's true cyberpunkish roots. Because it has nione.

I'm curious as to this "entirely new mechanical system".

Please don't tell me it parallels the d20 model.

We really need a "pulling the trigger" smiley.

-Siege

It doesn't parallel the D20 model. That's about all I can say right now, but I can assure you it's not a D20 clone.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the same and 10 being a completely new system, how woudl you rate it?

In case the NDA allows you to answer that. Having no idea how strict they are, I apologise for a stupid question in case it's way over the limit of what an NDA would allow you to tell.

the books have gotten worse since Mulvihill left? woo, there goes any common ground. i mean... if your idea of gritty cyberpunk is catgirls, okay, but that's really way outside the bounds of what most people define "gritty" as including.

Well, as far as the 'grit' of catgirls is concerned, I suppose it depends ont he brand of kitty litter

I have no serious beefs with the period between 1996-2001. YOTC was a fairly weak product, but it came at the tail end of that period (no pun intended). I'm sure I could nitpick a number of the products, particularly in the slow period following SR 3.0, but not the issues I have with books printed since 2001. I doubt I'll ever make use of most of the books I've bought in the past few years.

I really liked the material in YotC. I just wish that SURGE was presented much better (i.e., not blatantly as a tool for making comic book/anime characters).

SURGE should become a more integral part of the SR-world, adding some new twists to the universe.

The disappearance of deckers is not a bad idea. I know hardly someone who plays one. THey npc's 99% of the time. So changing them is a good thing imo.

that's what i'm saying--we're playing completely different games. the stuff that's come out since FanPro took over are my favorite products. when i read through YotC, i sat down and seriously considered whether or not i wanted to continue playing SR, because the SR i played was becoming seriously devorced from the SR that was being developed.

Right. If I wanted anime catgirls, I'd be playing BESM. Or possibly Cyberpunk - those bizarre body conversions from one of the chromebooks...

*flicks eyes over towards the BESM book he's working on*

*flicks eyes over towards some SR4 notes*

I keep them on seperate computers so they don't breed, I promise.

I don't think it's that any of us have something against hot anime catgirls. We just don't care for them in our own special flavor of SR game.

You do that.

I know where you live.

(Okay, that's not true. But keeping the BESM and SR4 seperate is a *damn* good idea.)

What is BESM? Or better: what game?