except that you're making stuff up just as often. where they say "X, therefore possibly Y" where Y is bad, you're saying "X, therefore possibly Z", where Z is not-bad. is it somehow okay to make stuff up as long as you maintain a positive outlook? i'm unclear on how that works.

What ever Doc, I'm not going to remain in a discussion with you - or anyone else - that insists on continually becoming insulting in order to help thier point.

*whistles innocently*

heheheheheheh...

I wish anyone who is looking for agreement among a majority of the customer base (that includes potential customers as well as existing fans) a lot of luck. For the most part, what you get here are personal, individual opinions. Which are certainly important to that individual, but aren't what any designer bases design decisions on, really.

I mean, seriously, the signal-to-noise ratio is crazy here. So much noise. Very little that the devs can pull out of this stuff as real, serious, quality feedback. Most of what's here is individual opinion, some of it is flat out wrong (based primarily on lack of information and assumptions), and some of it, even if personally correct, will just conflict with design decision. Which will happen.

I mean, just take one line from Eldritch here: "Yeah, SR3 needed some help, but not a complete rewrite..." Okay. Now, personally, that's his opinion. Nothing wrong about it, it's what he thinks. Now, what I think is that SR3 needed to be largely chucked into a dumpster and that SR4 should be even more revolutionary than it likely will be. Which won't happen either, but it's a good example of where two personal opinions differ, and neither one is really going to reflect the design decisions.

And I don't have a problem with that DE - it's the constant name calling thaty Doc F uses to help his point.



*******
Doc F, point me to a post where I insulted some one - flat out called them Idiotic, assinine, or whatever other names you like to use.

Please. Becuase I'd like to think I've avoided that. If I havent' then I've screwed up and posted while not paying attention or some such stupid thing.

with the exceptiong that you're trying to convince people that the sky isn't falling, doc, i'm still not seeing how that definition disincludes you. for instance, in the "power of magic" thread, you were making up all kinds of things about priorities in SR4. to be sure, those arguing against you were just as guilty of fabricating facts. but you're trying to invalidate arguments in this thread on the basis of behavior that you yourself engage in.

The only thing I was "making up" was the assumption that priorites would work roughly the same as they do now unless stated otherwise. Others were pulling crap completely out of their ass with no basis on anything in the FAQs or history of the game, and were using that to condemn the entirity of the system based upon chains of flaws they were deriving from all that made-up baloney.

Again: Critizing what's out there is totally okay. Making stuff up so you have an excuse to critize, and then flying off the handle that much more due to the consequences of the stuff you or someone else just made up... not so much. But if you do, don't be surprised when someone else "makes stuff up" (ie, assumes things are largely remaining the same unless otherwise stated) as a counterpoint.

As for what I was "making up" in that thread, they were backed up purely by the FAQs. Fact #1: Players still priortize their characters during creation (and after having clearly and repeatedly defined "priorities" as "buying points in one way or another for certain aspects of your character, not an alphabetic assignment on a chart). Fact #2: Magic is purchased as an attribute, not that its necessary the same as other attributes. If you want to show me how either of those aren't facts, feel free.

Or, instead, we could have more fun by repeatedly punching ourselves in the face.

A then B iff A is true.

No, A then C iff A is not true.

Yes, A then B iff A is true!

No, A then C iff A is not true!

Yes, A then B iff A is true! Poopy-butt!

No, A then C iff A is not true! Pig-fucker!

Thanks, I'm here all week. Try the veal. Tip you waitress.

Now speaking sincerely, I don't think it's the "have to buy new books is what I hate" at least with regards to myself. Certainly, spending all that money (potentially anyway) is a hurdle to consider, but as has been said by at least a couple people on these forums here is that I would buy it if I was more certain of the end mechanics still cooperating/compatible with the look/feel of a Shadowrun game.

I really do not know if I'm anti-SR4 or not, but I'm definitely not a leaping and enthusiastic fan of the idea(s) put forth so far. There are certainly some things that at least sound as if they have good potential. But there are a couple of things that sound as if ultimately all that has been done is one game system has been replaced with another one and it will have at least as many bugs in the mechanics as the current one.

It is this consideration, at least insofar as the mechanics are concerned that is my personal hurdle to consider. I know that many people have made many statements, some of them very empassioned. More than a few of mine own have been with the very least, an annoyed repose. I just do not feel that from what I have heard that ultimately this is anything *but* an excuse to charge more money for materials that are not going to be any less buggy than the first set. I want very much to be proved wrong but given the level of information so far, I just do not believe it (shrugs).

I love the world of Shadowrun... and love the SR3 system.

However the group I was GMing found the system WAY too complicated to play casually. They loved the lore and technology, but whenever combat would break out we could not keep all the numbers and checks straight. Even with notecards, cheatsheets. Granted these people have MAJOR ADD, but I no amount of reading and research I could do could smooth the process.

(It also didn't help that we had keep track of all 5 VERY different characters and their skills, but the system just compounded the problem.)

I can only hope that SR4 cleans up the system so combat is smooth and not as confusing because I LOVE this game and want my crew to give it another chance.

Feonyx

THe idea of fixing rules bloat is why I am going to check out SR4, but it still needs to be a fairly accurate simulation of reality.

argh. the "who's making stuff up" issue is too thorny for me to discuss. doc, i think we can both agree with the sentiment that people need to be more careful with what they post.

That's because the WoD rulebooks could be lots of background setting info, and absolutely no mechanics information, and they'd still go over well.

In this case its more because all the core dice rules have already been published in the World of Darkness book. What they're putting in the Mage: the Awakening book will be all the stuff that pertains only to mages. Which is mostly What does this mean? What does that mean? type of stuff.

Which, in turn, is exactly the type of rules-bloat that people here seem to despise. You should only need the core book to play any given archetype. In nWoD, if you want to play a Mage, you need both WoD and M:tA. In SR3, you need the BBB and MitS. Six of one, half-dozen of the other, and both stink.

As has been pointed out you don't have to buy MitS. You can play a mage right out of the BBB - that is the difference.

I don't mind at all putting the basics in the CRB of any game, then releasing a Magic book with more detail, extras and optional rules. If you wanted to cram all the good stuff of Magic, Cyber, bio, Riggin, etc, you'd end up with one giant book, 2000 pages long. that ran you $200 or more. Imagine the nightmare of indexing and crossreferencing that mess. Not to mention lugging it around.

I hadn't relaized the white wolf games had gone to that type of structure - core rules in one book and setting - Mage, Vamp, Werewolf, etc into seprate books - and you have to buy at least two books to play. Though if the books were cheaper it would make a little sense - you wouldn't have to reporduce the core rules in each book.

My biggest problem, as someone who came into SR at v2, is that this is looking horrifically like what happened in WoD: streamlining to the point where the feel is lost. The easier dice roll mechanics like the fixed target number and dice pooling is majorly similar, and frankly it has already ruined the D10 system WoD used for many. Sure, the old rules got bloated; thing is, people like me and many other WoD STs streamlined the rules ourselves where we saw fit, and do the same in Shadowrun. I love the current combat system; sure I need to keep a notepad for all the number crunching, but if the players are enjoying it who cares?

I also don't like the "advancement" of the technology. After all, the game is a cyberpunk game, and the changes to Rigging and Decking look to me like a total disaster. Total immersion may not look like the future anymore to industry analysts, but look at how popular a device it was in The Matrix films! Heck, plenty of people I know doing research into future technologies at a local university have said that the neural interface is looking like the way forward, and having overlaid imagery confuses many people when used as a HUD on a simple pair of goggles. Now imagine accessing the Shadowrun matrix that way, heck trying to do something as simple as drive home while doing so, and suddenly you have a nightmare on your hands. As for wireless technology, well I'd already worked that out on my own and adapted SR3 to fit it. Why take the whole thing apart?

It just seems to me they're oversimplifying it to plug into an audience who can't understand a system more complex than WoD and its equals while totally ignoring the gamers who play games as complex as Star Wars and D&D/D20. In the process, it's losing character, and the changes to the background are moving it in ways many followers of the metaplot will regard as frankly silly.

Which is, more or less, what a lot of us are worried about. We're just not allowed to say so, or Doc Funk gives us detention.

Save for the whole "OH MY GOD, this game is CRAP and I'm going to make up stuff to prove it!!!" parts which you're so fond of. But the fact that you can't quite grasp that that's my complaint against many arguments like yours is no surprise, even if I have said as much in the last six or seven posts of mine in this thread alone.

In any case, sanctus, total immersion isn't leaving the game with SR4. It's still there, as quoted by someone, uh, somewhere (yay for aging memory). It's just not the only real way to interact the Matrix anymore. In game terms, this allows deckers/hackers to have a more active role in the group, especially since this also means that they can get away with including more isolated networks that require the team to infiltrate the building before the decker can access them (which they largely had to avoid originally because deckers were pretty much corpses whenever they had to access the Matrix if they wanted to do anything worthwhile therein).

It looks like it was primarily a gameplay issue as well as a technological one. Why would interfaces be so black-and-white -- either jacked in or moving at a snail's pace in tortoise mode? The only change seems to be is that there's now a third option, one which is going to be wildly popular in runner circles. But gamers, online perverts, and hackers who prefer it will still have their full immersion, too.

doc, half the problem is that what you call "making things up", other people call "logical extrapolation". and again, you keep using a double standard where it's okay for you to make such extrapolations, but it's not okay for anybody else to do so. moreover, the extrapolations you're making really aren't all that logical, given the evidence. for instance, one of your mainstays is that if there's nothing in the FAQs that X is changing, then it's safe to assume that X will not be changing. you're basically ignoring the FAQ that stated outright what's going to be changing: everything.

I believe the FAQ stating what hasn't changed is hilariously telling.

indeed. if you read exactly what it says, it's pretty informative. a lot of the FAQs have been like that.

most of the people you're berating for doing that aren't doing that. it's a tired argument that simply doesn't apply to most of the people, such as Critias, that you're trying to apply it to.

mfb, I beg to differ. I would offer examples, but I've already been bribed not to talk about them anymore.

Then how about someone, anyone, else?

nerbert, as long as you're not bringing your particular brand of spastic non-logic into the argument, you can beg all you like.

Basically, what seems to be the most common pattern of behavior on this board is that if one person doesn't understand another person they point at them, tell them they're stupid, and tell them all they said was "swordfish mustardball". There's really no effort taken by anyone to understand anyone else. You either immediately agree with them, or you think they're psychotic.

That's a heaping load of crap.

that's a fair assessment of all sides, though certainly not all parties in this particular instance. and, to be honest, dumpshock catches a lot of my frustration with the state of SR--this is even more true lately than it usually is. i really don't have the energy to try to extract meaning from the crazy things people are saying, especially when i'm trying to extract meaning from and drive sense into the discussions that are taking place in other arenas. but in a lot of cases, it turns out that the person i'm trying to understand really is just saying "swordfish mustardball".

In 6 months, some people will still hate SR4 (for some good reasons if they have tried it with an open mind). I wonder how many of those will be wise enough to leave the SR4 thread and go to the SR3 thread ...
Who will keep fighting for nothing ?

For now no dev will use any idea (lol) written here anymore, neither people know really how the rules are.
What's the point ?

Nope, FASA/Fanpro's never used anything off the Internet.

However, your statement asking, "Who will keep fighting for nothing ?" is illustrative. Some of us don't think of it as "nothing," but clearly that hasn't registered with people short of hitting them over the head with a two-by-four.

Who's "fighting for" anything? I'm discussing. That's what the forum's here for. Discussing.