Ok So SR4 is on the horizon and there are some unhappy puppys out there, whats the problem with change? I mean ok its all speculation on the fine details of SR4 but thing's move on .... technology gets better and people change. It is just the natural course of things that it will change? So why are so many people unhappy about SR evolving?


torz x

I'm unhappy with it because the change is much bigger than it has been in any previous jump between editions. I don't mind change, or evolution. Evolution (despite what the X-Men might have us think) doesn't leap and bound like this, though. They're making an awful lot of very big changes, all at once. An awful lot.

I liked modifiable TN's, and considered them a staple of my Shadowrun diet. I won't have them any more.

I liked player-controlled tactically applicable pools, and considered them a staple of my Shadowrun diet. I won't have them any more, either.

I -- it's a small thing, but a thing nonetheless -- genuinely liked that SR stayed "real time" with it's growth and change (it was one of the first games, IIRC, to do this, and the fact it changed in real time was neat). Now it's off by five years. In much the same way the retroactive history in SoNA and a few other places bugged me ("Oh, it looks like this has been going on for a few years, now!"), this five-year jump forward kinda bugs me. Nothing major, and I understand the reasoning for it; but it irks me a little, anyhow.

*shrugs* So, yeah. I'm not looking forward to it. I'm not gonna try and make other people not look forward to it, I'm not gonna not buy it, I'm not gonna pretend it's not being published. I can't say for sure whether I'm going to like it or not -- I haven't seen the finished product -- but I can say that I'm not eager about it, based on the information we've got so far.

Is change good or bad? That depends on the change.

The amount of change that appears from reading the FAQs amounts not to an evolution of Shadowrun but a revolution. I think that changing to a fixed TN will make the game system 'coarser' in that any variables will be less subtle. Adding or subtracting a die is statistically a much larger change than changing the TN by +1/-1. I think that having player controlled dice pools is a good idea. The application of that idea did, in my opinion, need changing. That option is now gone.

In my opinion having what seems to be a completely new set of rules is not a good idea. I think that it is a change too far.

torzzzzz, there seems to be an unspoken assumption in your post that all change is good. In evolutionary terms a change may lead down a dead end to extinction. I do not like what I feel are enormous changes in the Shadowrun game. The changes may be good, they may even be necessary, but I don't have to like them.

In a previous poll, a large number of people said that the rules system of a game was 25% or more of what they liked about it. In writing a new rules system FanPro are taking a big gamble.

I will continue to play Shadowrun, I will buy the BBB4 to see where the game is going. I will continue to buy source books, but I won't be buying the other 'core' books or using the SR4 game system.

In the wise words of Aenea: "Choose Again."

Nothing is constant. If SR4 is a viable RPG in a futuristic fantasy/goth setting, then FanPro has done their job.

Why care if you can recognize the rulesystem? - Its the same world, tweaked up, sure, but overall it will be the universe we already enjoy.

Too much too fast, not possible, unrealistic, all these terms are the spawn of stagnant minds. Open up and smell the roses.

You feel safe and comfortable with your rules and views, but if you do not challenge them and change over time, then you are not growing as individuals.

I know these words sound a little imperious and will probably spawn alot of flack, but seriously, closemindedness influences all aspects of your life. And if a RPG changing and revising their rulesystem gets you up in arms like this, then you are putting way too much into it.

I love roleplaying, and am passionate about the universes built by the game creators, but in no way would I post so aggressively and negatively about a new version of a game. - Change is good.

weblife....

1. I rarely see people so arrogant.

2. GOTH? GOTH? This is not fucking World of Darkness.

Shadowrun isn't really a goth game. If that's what you're looking for, you can possibly make it work, but it's not going to be the thematic thrust of SR4, I can tell you that much. White Wolf already has that angle covered pretty solidly.

Goth or not is not the main turning point here. The discussion is whether its better to await the unknown with an open mind, or to lock up and diss the whole thing.

Most of the replies in the SR4 forum are worded something akin to this:

"I really want xxxxx to be in SR4, that sucks if they don't do that!"

"I really DON'T want xxxxxxxx to be in SR4, I'll go nuts if they put it in!"

I don't see too much of:

"Hey, they are gonna put in xxxxxxxx, that sounds really interesting I wonder if it works like..."

or

"I have a great idea for SR4, and I want your opinion before I mail my idea to FanPro, just because you never know."

SR4 is being made because FanPro expects there to be an audience who will welcome a game in that genre. They are trying to fit in our real world developments into their futuristic version. This will take some tweaking, particularly because the development is running much faster than first imagined by the writers of SR. - Leading to seemingly impossible techjumps in the SR timeline.

I do not take this as disheartening at face value. SR4 will be tempered to allow it to work. Converting from SR3 to SR4 will be quite easy if you don't get caught up in details that may or may not be realistic to your mind.

Everyone is going to see what comes when it comes. They have no choice.

The question is whether you expect the change to be good or bad. No matter which "side" you lean towards, you've formed a prejudiced view. Looking at things critically is not being closed-minded, no matter what conclusions you end up drawing. IMO, refusing to form an opinion because you can't control things is more stagnant than anything.

I echo the opinion that change is not inherently good or bad. However, (early) signs seem to indicate that this particular change will not be good.

Keep in mind that people on this forum are fans of SR3. To convince them that change is good, you have to provide reasons. So far, no one has been presented with many. The changes that have been announced so far are not popular. If you need more reason to justify the uproar, you might not be looking critically at the (scarce) evidence at hand.

All change is not growth; as all movement is not forward.
Ellen Glasgow

I don't have a problem with growth, or evolution. SR has been growing and evolving since it was released; Cyber, magic, decking, etc - all of it has had growth and change. The setting itself continues to evolve as well. And those are all good things.


Changing, evolving, growing is good.

Burning it down and rebuilding it is bad.

I keep hearing that 'We don't know what's staying and whats going' - but one of the faqs said pretty clearly that it is a new system.

Lets face it, Shadowrun is getting a new system. The setting is all that stays, and even that is undergoing an overhaul. Is it good? unknown. Is it bad? IMO No. It will be different, and change is hard.

Like many have said before, I reserve judgement until it comes out. I will buy it, and if I like it I will play it. Until then it is SR3 for me.

Change is neither good nor bad. It simply is.

Remember New Coke?

Changing rules can make a great difference to how a game is played even if the setting is identical. If you have a game like 1st edition Runequest (going back a bit I know) in which characters have low hit points, then even a Rune Lord-Priest is going to have a tough time against a mob of trollkin armed with spears. In a high hit point game like D&D even using the same background a Rune Lord-Priest equivalent can ignore an almost infinite number of trollkin. Rules therefore do have an effect on tactics within a game.

I do not think, and have never said, that the SR3 rules are perfect; far from it! Writing an entirely new set of rules is, as someone mentioned in another post, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. When the first press release came out I was expecting a revision of the old rules, not an entirely new game system.

If, as Patrick says; "we don't have everything nailed down yet", FanPro is cutting things a little fine. I don't how much lead time is required to get SR4 to the printers so as to be ready for release at GenCon, but any changes made now won't have much chance to be playtested.

Both false. Change can be good or bad. It is not consistently one thing, but neither is it consistently neither.

~J

This is me talking. The player, not the playtester and not the writer. I say this now so that in case the "I speak for myself" disclaimer in my sig isn't enough, I make it obvious that I'm in no way connected to FanPro with this particular post.

IMHO, the only reason the rules are changing is so Fanpro can try and push the game into a larger market. More power to them.

1) If you are not going to buy the book then quit bitching about it and post elsewhere. We enthusiats do not need to come here and see your naysaying.

2) Quit trolling Weblife's comment about the game being fantasy/goth. True its scifi/fantasy or steampunk or whatever but if you or your gaming group or you GM/DM isn't original enough to tweak the setting more to fit your groups style then it is not his fault. He sees the setting as more goth and it is his style. You can easily interpret this setting with other aspects so please don't knock anyone for choosing to do so. Who cares if WW or WoD has that setting in aces, they suck.

Calm down kids...

Bull

Jeeze - Sensitive?

Look, He's not bashing - calling the devs, et F***ups would be bashing. Calling then Talentless hacks would be bashing. That's not what he said.


First off he said what we all know - and you've agreed with; It will not be perfect. It will have problems and it will require a FAQ. Nor did he allude to any system that is perfect. Most of us have been gaming a long time - we know better.


Second, He made a sarcastic comment concerning the usefulness of the faqs. And he's right. The Faqs have, historically, caused as many problems as they've solved.

So what's your beef? If these comments are winding your shorts up that much, then you should take a week off, relax and worry about the wedding.

Is everyone really this distrusting of Fanpro and have a complete lack of faith in their ability to put out a solid book?

IMHO, they have been doing a good job so far with all the SR3 books they have released. So I am kinda confused as to why you all think SR4 will require a FAQ at release.....

It's not that change is bad. There are plenty of places where SR3 could use some improvements, and even if it was fine, stagnation is boring.

What may be bad, however, is the scale of the change. There are a lot more ways to get things wrong than to get them right. If you make incremental changes, you can keep what you know is right and try to get the wrong stuff right. But if you essentially start from scratch with a new mechanic, you don't know what is wrong or right based on previous experience. You have to figure it out all over again. And that takes time. Time is not something that is available in great abundance between now and GenCon.

So when someone says

It's not that I am distrusting of FanPro's abilities to produce a book. They have produced some pretty good books recently, some I have like better then others though. But SR4 is a new product and I am distrusting of FanPro putting out a new product. So far they have not done a good job of advertising it, and the info that they have released so far has actually had a negative impact. That is at least what it seems from the reaction here at Dumpshock. Of course I know that Dumpshock doesn't make up their entire fanbase .

Here is a list of the reasons why I lack faith in FanPro's abilities:

1. Poor communication with their fanbase (remember that the faq is posted on the official website, not dumpshock), and virtually no marketing other than the faq.

2. Their deadline (that they artificially set for themselves) is less than 4 months away, and they are still in play-testing, and haven't finalized the system yet. That means to me that they are still in the development stage. If they had a year to go before release, then I would be a lot more comfortable with it.

3. The process of choosing playtesters was as transparent as a brick wall. How do we know that playtesters represent the fanbase, dumpshockers, or even people who have ever played shadowrun. Couldn't they have opened playtesting to the public domain and accepted applications from those interested and committed to play testing. It seems that the developers did an inside job on the playtesters bit. I know they tell us that the playtesters are representative of the fanbase, objective, and expert roleplayers , but really all we have is their word for it.

4. I trust FanPro to produce new material for SR3, not SR4. This is not new material for an already existing game, but changing an already existing game. I frankly, from what I have seen, do not trust them to make an entirely new game. Especially when that game is my favorite game.

Now these problems are primarily based on how FanPro has communicated with their fans, customers, and market. I belong to all three of those categories. Who knows, maybe SR4 will be the bomb, but from what they have shown us, we aren't convinced.

And to those calling us close minded for fearing change. Well I am a rational person, I can judge whether change is good for me or not. So far I am not convinced that this is a good change. I have a mind and I use it. How is that for arrogance??

Veracusse

We HATES filthy, nasty changes!...

No, we loves changes. Changes are our friends...

Changes wants to hurt us...to KILL us...Changes hates us!

Patrick, thanks for giving us the heads up about print lead time. It's a lot less than I was afraid of.

Where did you ever get the impression that anything I say here is said humbly?

The arguments have been made. I am not going to bother repeating them for you, though.

I will.

The bullshit comment is from Veracusse, not you. Sorry for the confusion.

And I have read the arguments and I still don't see it. Losing dice will not change anything even if its only 1 to 2 dice a turn.

If the arguments don't do it, feel free to stop by www.shadowland.org and ask around for a good dice-rolling page to show you a blow-by-blow of competent combat pool usage. Tell 'em who sent you, tell 'em what you're after. Maybe seeing it work and reading the die rolls will expand your narrow horizons a little, and make you understand what a vital part of Shadowrun's character-driven combat system is being snipped off.

Anyways. I've answered Torzzz's (or whoever many z's go there) question, and I didn't set out to turn this into another "combat pool is important" vs "duhh, no it's not" thread. I'm done with that topic. You can read up on it, or you can't. No loss to me if you don't understand.

Critias, sounds to me like you use CP the same way any smart player would. I, however, do not see it being a loss in tactics to lose CP altogether because I also play other RPGs where there are no extra dice to be used. To call them mindless is incorrect.

If you played DnD and just sat there rolling dice without thinking about your actions then I feel sorry for you that your GM sucked and didn't challenge you more.

I GM/DM both SR3 and DnD 3.5 and I regularly challenge my players regardless of the setting or rules. While I love CP (never said I didn't) I do however recognize that it is not needed to have a challening encounter for your players. Ask my players how I GM/DM. I have a group full or rules lawyers and I constantly have to tweak the stats of things on the fly to catch them off guard and they are just as precise and calculating in combat in DnD as they are in SR3.

You think tactics will die, fine. It's your opinion. I think it will be good either way. Thats my opinion.