Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: SR4 is to 3.5 as....
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
lord_cack
Well, I would say that if it is one thing Shadowrun could do more like D&D is the format of the books. I think that 3.5 Edition Dungeons and Dragons is written in such a way that a monkey could understand it. I understand from a Financial stand point why they don't do things this way. Fan Pro is not WotC, so the cost in production would be enormous.

But, It would be nice to get a "Core Rules Book" that was like the D&D Players Handbook and the Dungeon Masters Guide in one core book, then buy the "Shadowrun Campaign Setting" separate. There are good points and bad points to that.

I think one good thing is that if a person playing SR3 wanted to update the rules and make their own conclusions on how things changed (especially concerning the Matrix or lack-there-of) then he could do that. But, if they wanted to keep the storyline evolving with the setting then he/she could buy the "Campaign Setting Book".

Aside from cost the main problem is that Shadowrun is so tied to the Campaign Setting that it would be difficult to make changes on your own without limiting your future resources (ie Supplements, source books, even adventures).

I think that is part of the way that Dungeons and Dragons can remain so popular is because the rules can change but your campaign probably won't have to.

Even if they keep with the normal Shadowrun Update method, thats fine. But, they could look at how the Dungeons and Dragons books are formatted and follow that theme. Cause they are just so much easier to read and the rules are all together in their specified sections. But I like the italicized examples in the Shadowrun books I think they should keep that.
Kagetenshi
No. No, no, no, no, no. Doing so, as D&D has demonstrated, is the death of the tie between the system and the setting.

~J
Arethusa
What are you talking about? It isn't inextricable at all. D20 was explicitly designed as a modular system. DnD was intended to make use of this as the core game of D20. There is nothing inextricable about this relationship.
Eyeless Blond
And in some ways it's a good idea. Say, for instance, you wanted to have a game where the Tirs, IE, and the stupid raping of California for the sake of Seattle never happenned, where the US is still one nation but it doesn't matter because all the real money and influence is tied up in dozens of megacorporations. Or say you wanted a completely different world, with a Great Dragon or two roosting in every major city (and many places in between), with the metahumans desperately trying to scrabble for the scraps of what the big Ds are fighting over.

These and any number of other things are mostly politics, and not intrinsically tied to the game mechanics. In fact, that first idea I had the technology of the game would would barely be affected at all; only the battle lines would be drawn slightly differently. As it is, though, you're kinda being force-fed the metaplot along with the mechanics. This isn't really a *horrible* thing, as you can always just discard the flavor text and write your own, and the people that care enough to just discard the metaplot will still do it, so I don't really think it's a big enough worry at this point.

If, though, Shadowrun *really* takes off and sells millions of copies or something, then it may well be worthwhile to write an extremely alternate universe sourcebook, like the SR: Dragon Swarm idea I had above, just to show that it can be done. That's just a pipe dream though; one metaplot's hard enough to keep up with. biggrin.gif
Garland
Not to mention that if 3.5 was really understandable by even monkeys, as suggested by lord cack, then why are they having all these multi-part articles on the D&D web site explaining complexities in the rules?

Edit: Spelling...
Sharaloth
Shadowrun is not a modular world system, like D&D is. The Shadowrun rules set is designed specifically for the Shadowrun world (Campaign Setting, if you will). You can divest the setting from the rules (I did it a couple times, years ago), but you end up basically having to re-write half (or more) of the game to make it work properly. Shadowrun is more the setting than it is the rules, witness three current and one coming iterations of rules systems that has kept a living, growing world to its name. I would not want the world info seperate from the core game rules, because that would make running the game less fun. Plus, how could you be able to run a game straight off the core book (as you can with SR3, and I assume SR1 and 2), without world info?

edit: I suppose you could, but it wouldn't really be Shadowrun (assuming new players)
RunnerPaul
QUOTE (Garland)
Not to mention that if 3.5 was rellay understandable by even monkeys, as suggested by lord cack, then why are they having all these multi-part articles on the D&D web site explaining complexities in the rules?

Even more telling, would be the upcoming D&D for Dummies release they have due out in the end of April.
DrJest
Tell me that's a joke.

No, wait, I used to hang out on the Star Wars boards for a while - it probably isn't a joke...
Adam
It's not a joke, and it's a totally amazing idea.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Arethusa @ Mar 23 2005, 01:44 PM)
What are you talking about?  It isn't inextricable at all.  D20 was explicitly designed as a modular system.  DnD was intended to make use of this as the core game of D20.  There is nothing inextricable about this relationship.

Since when did I mention D20? D&D went modular-world and settingless long before that.

QUOTE (Adam)
It's not a joke, and it's a totally amazing idea.

Even if it's a good idea, how does it reach amazing, let alone totally amazing? It's just what D&D and GURPS have been for the last two decades, give or take.

~J
Charon
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
QUOTE (Adam)
It's not a joke, and it's a totally amazing idea.

Even if it's a good idea, how does it reach amazing, let alone totally amazing?

It's possibly a great idea because it could tap the kid market. Get them while they're young...

I wouldn't market it as D&D for dummies, though.
Kagetenshi
Eh? How does becoming the new GURPS tap the kid market?

~J
Adam
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Even if it's a good idea, how does it reach amazing, let alone totally amazing? It's just what D&D and GURPS have been for the last two decades, give or take.

I'm saying that a "D&D for Dummies" book is an excellent idea -- it's good for marketing, putting the D&D name in a different section of the bookstore, it's useful for adults who have never gamed and either want to game, or want to know about it for their children, and it helps make the D&D hobby seem more legit.
Kagetenshi
Ooooh. Missed that post. Ok, never mind, clearly naptime for me.

~J
DrJest
QUOTE
I wouldn't market it as D&D for dummies, though.


Actually, I would - the "For Dummies" line has a very good reputation, in Britain at least, as being able to break down complex stuff in relatively simple terms and providing a good education for the layman.
Fu-Man Chu
Nope, it's not a joke. . .

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846
Synner
QUOTE
Should Shadowrun be more like D&D?

IMHO No.
RunnerPaul
QUOTE (Fu-Man Chu)
Nope, it's not a joke. . .

Not a joke

at all.

The above are links to the two publishers involved.
lacemaker
I used to be very big on disentangling the system and the setting - the GURPS approach I guess - but as I read more of the niche system/setting combo books, it's become obvious to me how integral system design decisions are to conveying to striking the right tone - not about who runs california oviously, but I dark future game is going to emphasise different mechanics and different challenges in the rules to, say, a space opera game. SR isn't as specific in its tone as something like Feng Shui or In Nomine - there's a lot more room to fiddle with which aspects of the game world you want to emphasise - but it's most certainly not generic, which means that a generic rules set is never going to suit it.
BookWyrm
Should SR4 be more like D&D. An emphatic HELL NO! Streamline it, yes. Make it easier to play, yes. Keep what makes the whole thing work? Hell Yes!

Keep SR4 the individual game system it is. YOU DO NOT FUTZ WITH WHAT WORKS, and Shadowrun, as a game, scenario, campaign & story, WORKS.

'Nuff Said.
Ol' Scratch
I'm not even remotely concerned with the possibility. I haven't seen even the tinest hint that the desigers even contemplated creating a generic system and treating the Sixth World as a tacked-on example of how to make use of it. Dunno why so many are up in arms about it at all.
Grinder
Just read the title and my first thought was: "no". SR don't need to be like d&d. In no way. Splitting the main book in two books simply sucks. I don't like that. Pegasus did so with the main rules of Call Of Cthulhu and it's nothing i support.
DrJest
QUOTE
YOU DO NOT FUTZ WITH WHAT WORKS


Spot the Larry Niven fan smile.gif
Gilthanis
Blasphemy! Shadowrun should never be compared with such a pathetic game as D&D. But to add color, you don't have to use any of the background stuff now if you don't want to. That is simple. Just make up any world you want and say there wont be any of these. That is just as simple as D&D only when you read the rules in the SR core book they gave you their version of the game. I personally enjoy the background stuff and the settings. I like the way they develop the story throughout the main books. It helps unify other gaming groups under one generalized world. The worst problem most D&D campaigns have is metagaming or the lack of knowledge in the DM's world. How much should the player know in advance. It is always sad to start a quest as a level 1 character and have to keep asking a DM about general info. on the towns surrounding your homeland because you haven't leveled enough in game to actually have a local knowledge to figure it out on your own.
lord_cack
QUOTE (Garland @ Mar 23 2005, 02:13 PM)
Not to mention that if 3.5 was really understandable by even monkeys, as suggested by lord cack, then why are they having all these multi-part articles on the D&D web site explaining complexities in the rules?

Edit:  Spelling...

If you dig deep enough into the rules, it may get complex but compared to the BASIC rules of SR3, Dungeons and Dragons and the D20 rules set are very, very simple. If you look at the bulk of the material you are talking about it isn't so much about rules as it is fine tuning character/campaign design, how to make a bigger better character, and things of that nature. Also, you are talking about Wizards of the Coast here. I mean the company that releases a book called Dungeon and Dragons for Dummies (after releasing a very nice Basic Game Box Set, that contained very simplified rules) will do pretty much anything to sell a book and as long as they make the community feel they NEED to have the rules explained to them a million times, then the community will continue to BELIEVE they need to spelled out for them (all the while WotC will suck up there willingly paid out 40 bucks).

I would also like to add, that for the most part, my original post agree's with most of the posts that follow. I understand that Shadowrun is so tied to the setting that it can't be done in another book. I just think (out loud unfortunately) that if it could be done, it would be interesting to see how it worked.

Also the main point of the original post was the suggestion that the Manner in which the Dungeons and Dragons core rule books were written in could be followed. I don't think anyone can say that those books are not easy to read, with each section (character generation/Combat/magic ect.) clearly defined with all rules for each located in its section. I think that would help with Shadowrun. The SR3 book reads well, but when it comes down to using it, you have to flip back and for through the book just to explain one thing, you shouldn't have to do that and with D&D you don't. That was my main point.
DrJest
QUOTE
I don't think anyone can say that those books are not easy to read, with each section (character generation/Combat/magic ect.) clearly defined with all rules for each located in its section.


Mmm... it's better in 3.5, but there's still a lot of page juggling to do to get everything sorted. But that's a factor of any roleplaying game.

But it's not as well-organised as all that, even so. Example: I went looking for the rules on Darkvision tonight, only to discover that they aren't in the Player's Handbook - or at least, not in an easily locatable form. And that's a racial ability for at least two races I can think of off the top of my head.
Garland
QUOTE (lord_cack)
The SR3 book reads well, but when it comes down to using it, you have to flip back and for through the book just to explain one thing, you shouldn't have to do that and with D&D you don't. That was my main point.

My apologies, but no. D&D has, to some extent, the same problem that SR3 does. Rules have acreted, requiring all sorts of page flipped back and forth between books.

And, having sat in on a couple of attacks of opportunity "discussions," I think the clarity of many of the rules leaves a bit to be desired.
lord_cack
I don't understand the problem that DnD players have with Attacks of Opportunity. I never had a problem understanding it (but I think this goes back to my previous statement about the community in general).

As far as page flipping goes with DnD the one thing I never understood was having the "Leadership" feat mentioned in the Players Handbook and the RULES for its use in the Dungeon Masters Guide is just retarded....So I agree that its got its share of issues. I still think its so simple a monkey could use it....

Sandoval Smith
QUOTE (DrJest @ Mar 26 2005, 08:19 PM)
QUOTE
I don't think anyone can say that those books are not easy to read, with each section (character generation/Combat/magic ect.) clearly defined with all rules for each located in its section.


Mmm... it's better in 3.5, but there's still a lot of page juggling to do to get everything sorted. But that's a factor of any roleplaying game.

But it's not as well-organised as all that, even so. Example: I went looking for the rules on Darkvision tonight, only to discover that they aren't in the Player's Handbook - or at least, not in an easily locatable form. And that's a racial ability for at least two races I can think of off the top of my head.

That's odd. Did they hide them in the DMG? Offhand, both Lowlight and Dark Vision work out to 60 feet, with Darkvision being akin to thermographic.

I never had a problem with attacks of oppurtunity once my group and I started using a battle map during fights. AOs never came up that much when we just kept running everything in our heads.

And was I mistaken, or did someone posting under the name, 'Gilthanis' call D&D pathetic?
SpasticTeapot
First, if SR3 was to SR4 as AD&D 2nd edition was to 3.5, I would personally start spraying all the game devs' cars with Silly String. 2nd edition allowed at least a little roleplaying. 3.5 is like a stuffer shack: Accessible to all, and filled with munchie possibilities. (Some guy I know managed to create a character named Pat the Baker, who hit things with a magical spatula and rollling pin. As far as I know, he's at 15th level and going strong.)
That said, I think that a guide to alternate campaign settins might be in order. An all-in-one approach works great for most games, but some of us desire to make our own. (I'm trying to cook up a set of rules for a Cowboy Bebop modification, but so far it's garbage.) If a bunch of GM tools similar to (Gasp!) the 2nd edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide were provided to do things like help design demographics and new magical systems, I imagine it would sell quite well.
lord_cack
QUOTE (SpasticTeapot @ Mar 29 2005, 12:46 AM)
2nd edition allowed at least a little roleplaying. 3.5 is like a stuffer shack: Accessible to all, and filled with munchie possibilities. (Some guy I know managed to create a character named Pat the Baker, who hit things with a magical spatula and rollling pin. As far as I know, he's at 15th level and going strong.)

That said, I think that a guide to alternate campaign settins might be in order. An all-in-one approach works great for most games, but some of us desire to make our own. (I'm trying to cook up a set of rules for a Cowboy Bebop modification, but so far it's garbage.) If a bunch of GM tools similar to (Gasp!) the 2nd edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide were provided to do things like help design demographics and new magical systems, I imagine it would sell quite well.

I would first say that Role Playing is an attitude that while it can be influenced by the system, isn't bound to it. I mean I could play Floyd the Barbarian (2nd level Fighter) In AD&D, just as easily as I could in 3.5 Edition But, 3.5 would allow me to do FAR greater things than 2nd Edition ever could. And whats wrong with having so many possibilities?

But I personally would like to see alternate campaign settings as well (I always thought post apocelyptic game with Shadowrun rules set would be good), but I think that should just fall to the player, its a tough task though.
Gilthanis
So....you've lost me. Why do you NEED an alternative rule book when the one we have provides the same info. You can cut the story out of the book and still have the same system and gear. I'm missing why they would possibly need to print two books that provide that same info. To me, it makes more since to give the core rules and the cool story line all in one book. I don't know about you, but I hate buying several books to get the full deal. (which we really can't avoid due to the evolving game)

I understand that maybe you are tired of their setting and want a new one...but there is no need to appeal to a very small percentage of the SR gamers that may see it desirable to cut the story. What you need is in front of you regardless of your game setting. Why would they waste their time and money putting out two versions of the same book. Just sounds dumb to me.

And yes that name is in Dragon Lance which is not an RPG anymore. They made that game really lame by changing it into a card game. But, to rag on a name regardless where it comes from is hypocritical considering most runner names in SR aren't all that original are they? Most were inspired from somewhere else. Look at many comic books and there goes half your street names.
lord_cack
QUOTE (Gilthanis)
And yes that name is in Dragon Lance which is not an RPG anymore. They made that game really lame by changing it into a card game.

They did convert it over into D20 system game as well. But, now they quit producing new products for it.

RunnerPaul
QUOTE (Gilthanis)
And yes that name is in Dragon Lance which is not an RPG anymore.

*Ahem*
Wizards of the Coast and their licensee Sovereign Press would disagree with you on that claim.

lord_cack
This is way off topic now, but D20 Dragonlance as far as it being a RPG. But I can't believe they are making it a card game AGAIN....SAGA was so lame....

And this is why Shadowrun isn't a Modular system....thanks for showing me the error of my ways....
Sandoval Smith
QUOTE (Gilthanis)
And yes that name is in Dragon Lance which is not an RPG anymore. They made that game really lame by changing it into a card game. But, to rag on a name regardless where it comes from is hypocritical considering most runner names in SR aren't all that original are they? Most were inspired from somewhere else. Look at many comic books and there goes half your street names.

Sorry, I should've included a smilely in there someplace. grinbig.gif I didn't mean that as any sort of rebuttal or attack, but just as an amused, and perhaps slightly ironic observation.
Solstice
I have both of the recently released DL RPG books. They are quite good actually, exect for being rife with typos and grammatical errors.
sapphire_wyvern
QUOTE (Solstice)
exect for being rife with typos and grammatical errors.


Teehee.

It can happen to anyone! wink.gif
sapphire_wyvern
QUOTE (Sandoval Smith)
QUOTE (DrJest @ Mar 26 2005, 08:19 PM)
QUOTE
I don't think anyone can say that those books are not easy to read, with each section (character generation/Combat/magic ect.) clearly defined with all rules for each located in its section.


Mmm... it's better in 3.5, but there's still a lot of page juggling to do to get everything sorted. But that's a factor of any roleplaying game.

But it's not as well-organised as all that, even so. Example: I went looking for the rules on Darkvision tonight, only to discover that they aren't in the Player's Handbook - or at least, not in an easily locatable form. And that's a racial ability for at least two races I can think of off the top of my head.

That's odd. Did they hide them in the DMG? Offhand, both Lowlight and Dark Vision work out to 60 feet, with Darkvision being akin to thermographic.

I never had a problem with attacks of oppurtunity once my group and I started using a battle map during fights. AOs never came up that much when we just kept running everything in our heads.

And was I mistaken, or did someone posting under the name, 'Gilthanis' call D&D pathetic?

While this isn't really the forum for this, I thought I might just correct a little misconception here:

In d20, Low-light Vision doubles the radius of any light source that your character is using. Darkvision gives black-and-white (but otherwise normal) vision in up to total darkness out to whatever distance from your character is specified. For most core races, this is 60 feet, but some have 90 feet or even in extreme cases 120 feet.

So Low-light Vision doesn't have a range limitation, but also doesn't do anything unless there is actually some source of light present.

I think you'll find that darkvision is described in the racial traits section at the start of the book. However, for some more obscure abilities, the Monster Manual is needed. In any case, this information can be obtained for free off the web as part of d20 System Rules Description (SRD). Just Google for 3.5 SRD and you'll get all the important crunch of d20, completely legally, without spending a cent.

Now, returning to our scheduled Shadowrun goodness... cyber.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012