I can't help but ask.

There's been a whole lot of posting of "this isn't Shadowrun!" or "this doesn't feel like Shadowrun!" But very few people posting what Shadowrun is. Do we have a united view of what Shadowrun is? If not, would it be possible for any sort of rules revision (hell, forget rules revision, each SR3 book, for that matter) to "stay true" to Shadowrun?

Well, if it's identifiably something else, then it's actually pretty easy to say it's "not Shadowrun."

What makes it identifiably something else though? To identify something as different, I assume you need to be able to identify the original.

An exploding D6 variable-TN game without classes, with pools, and with a rich, detailed background including five primary races, technology, and a return of magic, with diversity in scope but a primary emphasis on mid-level criminal undertakings.

That leaves out a lot, but it's a start.

~J

Close resemblance.

Anyway, ask a smart-alec question, get a smart-alec answer.

When you're talking about something a person has a lot of investment, emotional or otherwise, it gets harder and harder to make simple definitions. For someone who has been playing SR for a good long while, what it means to him is going to be experiential, based on the setting, the rules, "that one time in the one game where he..." etc. Quantifying that is hard. But if there's a change, it's easy to notice how the change might invalidate some of the experience that he was so used to. Suddenly the rules don't support "that one time in the one game where he..." Suddenly it's different.

Oh, just thought of something. It's kind of like the difference between pr0n and art. You'll definitely know the pr0n when you see it.

about pr0n, yes. about game mechanics? not so much. i dare say dumpshock varies a lot more wildly on the subject of games and game mechanics than the general populace does on the subject of pr0n.

I can say what Shadowrun isn't....it isn't the only RPG with a futuristic setting loosely based on the real world. The one thing it had going for it was its rules set. That made the game different. From Character generation down to the last shot fired during combat, the rules set Shadowrun apart. There were no other games like it. The simple fact that you can say "This is like the World of Darkness." makes Shadowrun less than what it was. I am not saying (again I sound like a broke record) that SR4 won't be a fine game, but as they say....Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I don't like what I am seeing.

Hmmm, it's got to have:

- magic with an astral plane and this wierd spirit mumbo-jumbo
- all those awakened critters
- orks, trolls, dwarves, and (sadly) elves that are all actually mutated humans
- Corps who have the "government" under their thumbs
- cutural pervasiveness of crime and/or lawlessness
- guns, grenades, and other assorted incendory devices useful for damaging opponents and/or allies
- the expectation that the PCs are acting outside the law, and quite likely but not nessasarily have some sort of sociopathic or psychopathic tendancy

It also pretty much has to have:
- fistfuls of d6
- monofilament (*sigh*)
- Aztecnology

There are several key things I consider to be core to Shadowrun:

1.) 1980s
2.) Big, scary Japanacorps and inappropriate throwing around of Japanese terms in italics. Katanas that do STR + 3 M, whereas a "sword" does STR +2 M, thus proving that if something is asian it's better.
3.) A degree of firearms realism that is greater than the degree of realism presented by d20, such that you can actually, you know, die.

In a literal interpretation, Shadowrun is the set of all things that have been called Shadowrun by people who are entitled to make that designation.

FanPro is legally entitled to call just about anything "Shadowrun", except for movies and video games, since MS has the rights there. So Shadowrun d20 would be Shadowrun, Shadowrun: The World-of-Darknessing would be Shadowrun, 16th Century Shadowrunning would be Shadowrun, and Tic-Tac-Shadowrun would be Shadowrun.

But in a non-literal interpretation, the question is really asking about the salient features that distinguish Shadowrun from not-Shadowrun. Saliency is subjective, so the answer will vary from person to person. But I think any answer will boil down to two things: setting and system.

The setting has a tech/magic mixture (and a specific view of magic), a variety of races and critters normally reserved for fantasy games, and is set on a futuristic Earth. It's fairly realistic, dangerous if you're careless no matter who you are, and survivable if you're careful. It can be gritty but it's rarely bleak; it's imaginative but not fantastic.

The system creates a particular model of the world that defines who people are and what they can do; the costs and advantages of magic relative to technology; how fast one can advance, and what the difference in ability is between average people and experts. Like it or not, the system is a way to create many aspects of a model reality, and SR has created a very different reality from, say, a d20 model reality.

So if someone says they're changing SR to not be set on Earth any more, or was set in the Middle Ages, or was set in 2955, I'd complain that it wasn't the Shadowrun that I recognized. If they say they're setting it in 2070, sure, that's cool. 2070 is pretty close to 2065, one would imagine.

If they say they're changing Shadowrun so that the model reality is very different (e.g. d20), or that there is no model reality (diceless), then I would complain that it wasn't the Shadowrun that I recognized. If they say they're modifying the rules, or if they're changing the rules drastically but keeping the outcomes the same (different mechanics, same reality), then that's cool.

So far, it doesn't look like the setting will be unrecognizable (unless, perhaps, magic becomes extremely common). But there are major questions about the model reality--it looks like the model reality is changing a lot, not just the mechanistic details. People can get too attached to any one specific mechanism, and those complaints about this "not being Shadowrun" are, in my opinion, hard to justify. But if the result of all the mechanisms results in a game world with a different feel, with different results of actions, with a different range of possible events, then yes, I think it's legitimate to question whether something new really has the same salient features that used to distinguish Shadowrun. It could be that new salient features match Shadowrun less well than they match some other system.

I want to stress that "dangerous to characters of all levels" point. THAT is HUGE to Shadownrun. The point that a starting mage can wack a long time runner if he gets lucky was key. Magic having to be accumulated !?! That's not Shadowrun. Shadowrun had a great magic system the way that it was, unless you had constraints on your magic, no mumbo jumbo arm waving or forgetting of spells once they were cast, just the drain. That stuff is key to Shadowrun and it will be sorely missed if it is not present in SR4.

Our group used different coloured dice for pools vs attributes or skills and by seeing which dice actually suceeded it added a level of detail that the GM could add based on those dice. Things like that are what Shadowrun is and will be missed.

Much of Shadowrun's feel and ability to provide detail based on the outcome of the dice was the magic of it. SR4 sounds dumbed down at this point.

You know what, everyone is mentioning that they are changing the rules set drastically. But, though they haven't given a lot of information on the story changes, the changes being made to the way "hacking" works and the changes being done in that area don't lend to not "radically" changing the story line.

There is a very clear disconnect being made between what Shadowrun was and what it is to become. They are doing away with old storylines and tying up loose ends. This will be top to bottom a different game. To me it is clear that the intentions of this revision is NOT to appeal to current Shadowrun fans, it is to get new ones. If they can accomplish that then the loss of a SR fan like me means very little to them. So to me and the players like me should know that we are expendable assets.

This is not a hostile post or anything. I just understand where I stand on the whole thing. SR4, maybe good, may not. I don't care one way or the other. I just don't think it will be Shadowrun as I know it.

One thing that comes up from edition differences in the NERFING of abilities. I loved when they got rid of grounding spells through Foci, cause as a GM that ability made gave mages too much power. I explained it as Magical SOTA, but they never really gave an explanation to the players of the "OLD" editions. From the FAQ, and what I've talked about with my buddy who has ran WOD (WereWolf) since 1st edition, it sounds like they are making a lot of the changes that WOD did when they revised. I won't get all upset about any rules changes, I've always thought there were too damn many of them in Shadowrun, hell almost every skill has it's own modifiers and rules to keep track of. Open tests, opposed rolls, thresholds, Jeesh. I LOVE the game, and have ran it since 1st ed, and I always liked the improvements they made from edition to edition, but this game needed a serious overhaul. The reason I run the game game is cause I am a friggin NERD that can keep track of most of the rules. To the casual gamer, Shadowrun in it's current form is pretty friggin daunting to learn how to play, let alone run. I dan't want to see it watered down, but if the core mechanics were easier to learn, more people would play. Some things should stay the same though:

1. Keep it Dangerous, for both beginning characters and vets
2. Keep the cost of Skills linked to Attributes otherwise you get like the old WOD rules where a guy with a 1 in intelligence could still have a 4 in Medicine. How long did that dummy go to med school for? Half his Damn Life!
3. Don't Nerf Magic too badly. I've never had a hard time running magic, but it is daunting for newbie GM's. It could be toned down a bit, but they better explain it in the book on why a Mage in 2070 isn't quite the force he or she was in 2065.
4. While attempting to get new blood into liking Shadowrun, don't forget the folks that have supported this game for years. Don't just re hash old stuff and make us wait for the New Rule on Initiation and stuff. Give us something new and cool that makes us want to buy the book.
5. Put Ghouls back in the Sewer where they belong

If I my PC can infiltrate a corporate arcology under an invisibility spell with the help of a teammate who spoofs the camera, grab the scientist that was the extraction mark, get sniffed on his way out by a hell hound, get shot to hell by a security drone during the escape, but still make his way to the armored van with the juiced up engine thanks to cover fire from a huge troll who can fire an HMG from the hip, deliver the mark to a Mr Johnson and suddenly discover that the scientist was a flesh form spirit double agent that needed help to return to the hive... Then it's Shadowrun for me.

For me, SR the Game = SR the Setting + SR the System. I play this as a game, not a collective storytelling environment, and that means I want mechanics that work with the fiction and are fun to use.

The setting: cyberspace, magic, and body augmentation in a dangerous, backstabbing, Balkanized world based on a super-paranoid extrapolation of reality.

The system: multiple dice, levels of success, individual characters not explicitly balanced against each other in individual areas (your uber-mage can die via stabbing or black ICE or poison gas etc. -- no linear HP, no saving throws, no BAB, etc), pervasive tactical choices, attributes almost perpendicular to skills (opposed tests as Skill versus Attribute were great), few in-system roleplaying controls (Virtues, alignment, etc).

I can stand some level of change to the system, as can almost anyone, but there are just so many bits scheduled for demolition that it's hard to see the game as the same. For me, the greatest fear I have is that someone will think that simplification means removing tactical choices (and that doesn't mean combat choices), or dumbing them down to d20's "Fight Defensively" or whatnot. (Combat Pool was great as a measure of a character's finite attention to tactical issues. I'd be happier to see it combined with Initiative into a single stat than removed.)

There's plenty of room for change in the system, even though what I was really hoping for was mechanics tweaking and indexing rather than full-on changes. Hell, if I were Grand Master of Shadowrun, I would replace the d6's with d12's numbered 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9+, 9+ (or something). But nobody would go along with it, because it would break their sense of the game.

What is Shadowrun to me?

• Cyberpunk with some fantasy added (not the other way round!)
• A unique magic system (no memorizing, no spellpoints - choose force carefully and there's no drain)
• Weird weapon damage codes
• Even weirder equipment weights
• FUN!

Actually - IMHO they can change the rules anyway they want. The only detail that made the SR rules unique to me was the force/drain concept of spellcasting.
And even that could change, I don't play spellslingers anyway.

My very first SR character (back in 1992) wasn't even created under SR rules! We were using the SR background combined with the KULT rules at that time.
Rules do have a certain impact on the style of play. But the background is IMHO much more important.

I'm looking very positively towards SR4!

ooh, that's one thing i forgot. revision, meatbags:

a classless d6 game set in the Shadowrun universe, with detailed game mechanics that make the game dangerous to characters of all power levels and incorporate greater and lesser degrees of success.

For me:

Near Future
Dystopian
Megacorps
Magic meets Man meets Machine meets Matrix
Metahumanity
Conspiricy Theories
Mercenary Teams
Very Lethal
Fun with Friends

Another big thing that's Shadowrun to me: things that are different not working the same. Decking isn't Rigging isn't spellcasting isn't firing a gun.

~J

to a point. i don't think spellslinging should be different from decking just to be different. i think spellslinging should be different from decking because the are different, and i think that the differences in the mechanics should spring from necessary differences in the activities, rather than from some desire to just throw in differences willy-nilly.

for instance, i can't see any way to work a mechanic similar to writing scripts into the physical combat rules, so i don't think they should try. but, given the fast-and-loose way the Matrix is explained, i don't think it's unreasonable to handle sneaking past a piece of IC the same way you'd handle sneaking past a guard.

Shadowrun is the game I learned to roleplay on. It taught me how to think outside the box, to measure and consider tactical options, and that the game was more than just combat. It taught me that just a few simple stats could turn into a very complex and detailed character. It allowed me to have the most flexibility in designing a character, who could be virtually anything I wanted, within the starting power levels. It's the game I've loved ever since I picked up my first blue book in 1989; and the only game I've had autographed by one of the game designers.

That's what Shadowrun is to me. So far, SR4 doesn't sound like that game anymore.

which parts? the only thing i see in that list that SR4 is apparently missing is the tactical options for combat. (and yes, that's a big loss, and i hope to see it put back in before the game comes out.)

-thinking outside the box? no word on anything i'm aware of that would limit that.
-simple stats, complex character? see above.
-flexibility in char design? ditto.

but the Matrix system is wholly unrelated to reality. sneaking through systems in the Matrix has no concept to default to. there's no reason not to borrow a default concept from another part of the system.

To me Shadowrun is the classic Cyberpunk game, only with more focus on the spiritual side of the story.

Really, the only thing that makes the Shadowrun setting better than Cyberpunk 2020 is the Native American presence and the way that magic and metahumanity blend so seamlessly with the dark and gritty. Somehow, having japanese metahumans in control of faceless corporations just works. It provides a much easier avenue for exploring themes of racism in games than standard Cyberpunk, and the Native American parts allow for a good exploration of themes relating to technology, the possible sentience of machines/the definition of life itself, and the interconnectedness of man with the world around him.

Just recently I ran a Shadowrun game for a group that had never played it before. They all thought it was going to blow for sure. Needless to say, they were all very surprised, and all became very appreciative of how much Shadowrun really had to add to the story rather than being the stereotypical Cyberpunk 2020 with elves and dwarves. They still all thought the system sucked though, and are happy to hear there will be an overhaul of the entire thing.



The Horror

Shadowrun is a 700 ton rodent who lives in outerspace.

Hey stupid—are you too dumb to know there are 4 different simultaneous editions within a single edition of Shadowrun? D20 1 edition is a lie. 4 corners of the book = 4 directions and 4 different editions. Each edition rotates its own separate direction. Infinity rules is stupidity.

~J

evil word-bastards do not deserve to live.

6th World is a lie! You are to stupid and ignorant to see that it is 4 simultaniuos world exitsing at once. Orks are sunrise, humans are noon, dwarves are sunset, trolls are midnight. Elves are created by stupid evil educators to make you belive the lie.

Okaaayyyyyy....whaaa?

bask in the knowledge of Dr. Gene Ray, you educated singularity stupid non-entity.

argh. i'm really getting tired of people saying that--that deckers and riggers are just going to be one muddled "techie". if you listen to the guys who are actually playing the game with SR4 rules, you'll find that this just isn't true at all. a hacker who focuses on vehicles won't be able to do a computer-hacker's job, any more than a stealth-oriented adept will be able to to a gunbunny-adept's job.

i'm also still not clear how you're getting SR4 = inside-box-thinking only. what's been posted that would keep an SR4 mage from whacking the PCs with chaotic world, then letting the guards finish them off?

i agree that the loss of combat pool needs to be fixed in some way. but i don't see at all where you're getting the rest.

i'm responding specifically to Cain, who did say those things. i know most people aren't saying 'em, but, well, Cain did.

hm. that's not what his first post sounded like, to me. he listed what SR is to him, and then said SR4 doesn't sound like that game.

Whoops. Please see my edited post above for my final, definitive, opinion.