After reading certain comments on this forum, I sent the following e-mail to my group.

Sooooo...that means a playtester spot is open? Where do i send my application.

EDIT: Now that i think about it more....seriously i've got a group i'm GMing that next session in a couple of days will either die gloriously or raise a triumphant fist in victory and it will be a GM change and/or gamig system change anyway. They are a mixed bag of SR backgrounds. A couple longtime SR2/3 players, some SR3 from a few years down to maybe 6 months total, and one no SR at all yet. All age of majority so they can legally sign to secrecy.

Addendum. There are people who will decide that by criticizing SR4, you hate Shadowrun, and there are people who won't bother reading into it even that far, and just decide that all the hard work you've done as a playtester, and the very hard decisions you've come to as a result, are all some sort of funny joke. This isn't funny to me. Working for FASA, then FanPro, had always been my dream prior to this. I know I'm alienating myself from ever achieving that objective by actually speaking my mind, but I'd rather destroy that dream than sit by silently, offering some illusion of tacit approval. I repeat. This. Isn't. Funny. To. Me.

WK, the implications of your post are depressing, and I hope that your e-mail and resignation has more effect then you would have had by remaining a playtester.

I am genuinely sorry if my observations and my subsequent decision are depressing, but bear in mind that I may hold a rules system's simulation capabilities to unrealistically high standards. It doesn't change my observations, nor many of my conclusions, but it also doesn't mean that you'll be disappointed by SR4. Only time will tell, in that regard.

I feel for you WK - playtesting something for your favorite game must have been a great honor - I know I would have giggled myself to sleep every night for a while.

You're the second playtester to speak negativley of SR4, and I really feel for both of you.

Hopefully the peeps at FP will respect your descision, and not hold it against you.

Nerbert: No need to freak, unless you want SR4 to be more simulation and less game. Wire Knight's vision is likely to go towards simulation, which seems to be something he shares in common with mfb, the other playtester to post highly negative playtester comments here. Not that mfb didn't also mention other issuses he had.

On the other hand it seems apparent that Fanpro intends to make SR4 more a game, expecting there to be more market for a game than a [pen & paper] simulation. This is bound to make serious waves on these boards. Take a look around, and i don't just mean this SR4 subforum, and tell me that there isn't a strong underlying mood of "Dumpshock Forums: The Anal Retentives That Fun Forgot". Look at the reams of "that isn't realistic [enough]" comments that you'll find in Shadowrun rules forum. Is the percentage of those players, especially ones that are stridently of that vision, on DSF higher than in the current overall SR player population and among gamers in general? *shrug* I suspect so, and Fanpro is betting the house on it. We shall see.

Sadly this has been coming, and after reading mfb's post down below i was surprised he hadn't quit yet. There are likely more playtesters that are longtime hardcores that are having difficulties watching SR rules lose the simulation level complexities. At this point those people have to be already at, or coming to the harsh realization that SR4 isn't going to change much from where it is. [edit]At least in terms of the balance between attempting to simulate rather than provide a game.[/edit] That it just will never be anywhere near what they had a vision for, no matter what they say now. [edit]They could come to think that from the start of playtesting the deck was impossibly stacked against them altering the balance to their satisfication, which is quite possibily correct.[/edit]

That has to feel immensely fustrating.

But it also doesn't have me that worried about the chances of my enjoyment of SR4.

Thanks bull : apparently from what I understand you didn't like that much sr4 in the first time, but you have been convinced through play testing.
it simply makes me happier and more confident about liking sr4.

I've been coming to the conclusion for months. Bull's posts did contribute, but in no greater degree (a far lesser degree; to be honest) than hundreds of other posts and what has to have been, personally, roughly a solid week (i.e. ~170 hours) of playtesting and discussion. I did misspeak when I said "game developers", and since everyone loves arguing semantics, I will clarify. Please replace "game developers" with "those who engage in development, contributory editing, design, and testing of rules pertaining to the Shadowrun roleplaying game system, so doing under the express permission of FanPro". I am aware of Bull's status as a playtester, not a developer, and it was confusing to use that term to refer to a set of individuals that is inclusive of those who are not actual line developers (technically, there is only one developer, everyone else is, to the best of my knowledge, a freelance contractor).

As far as my wanting to make it a simulation... where's the fun in simulation? If I wanted to work with simulation, I'd just stop working witn pen and paper altogether and move on to computers. They're much better at running complex simulations in negligable timeframes. What I am interested in is a game that I can immerse myself in, via realistic simulation within an elegant system. If every fourth or fifth in-play action results in my mind recoiling at the utter unreality of what the rules say just came to pass, given the situation, I'm not going to have fun. Shadowrun's always been something close to a method of telling a good story, and good stories aren't full of things that make the readers cringe. D&D, on the other hand, has always been (to me) a more freeform pen-and-paper version of a video game, so it's okay if a human has as much statistical chance of resisting and sustaining damage as a large ship.

I can't just shift my perceptions of Shadowrun from the former to the latter, which is what would be required in no small degree for me to gain the same level of enjoyment and immersion out of SR4 as I have out of SR2 and SR3.

like i've said before, i don't think SR needs to sacrifice the ability to simulate reality in order to gain a simpler/more streamlined ruleset. i think SR could greatly increase its ability to simulate reality, and greatly decrease the rules bulk and complexity at the same time. there are a lot of factors i feel the devs are sacrificing on the altar of the great god Simpler Rules, that really don't need to be sacrificed.

when i first saw the rules, i did not want to playtest them. i did anyway. i've seen a lot of good changes come through, but very little that i'd miss if i'd decided not to playtest in the first place.

Man...I just feel that there were so many things that a new edition of Shadowrun could have fixed. More rational damage codes, where a .30-.06 rifle isn't rivaled in power by a "heavy pistol", and where firing aimed single shots from your assault rifle is a viable option just like it is in real life. Better rules for suppressive fire to make it more dangerous, and the corrected rates of automatic fire to go hand in hand with that. Fixing the way recoil works. Fixing the outlandish and tragic martial arts system.

But, of course, none of these things were the point of SR4 from the beginning.

It's good to hear all of the feedback about SR4. I'm a die hard SR guy, but I'm still gonna give SR4 a crack when it comes out. I've been playing in my buddy's Werewolf game (new WOD) and while I know that it isn't "realistic", it's vastly improved over the previous editions. The game has it's faults, but it's interesting to see my buddy, who has ran Werewolf since 1st edition, latch on to it. I love to run Shadowrun, but it's different mechanics and resolution systems are so "Not Friggin realistic" it isn't even funny. Lets be real here. Magic, Trolls, Cyberware. It's hard to make it seem too real when it just plain isn't. If you go buy the book, a full blown fire fight may last 30 seconds (wow 10 rounds, that's a lot of game time!) Most folks never miss when shooting (they may hit all armor, but they rarely miss completely. The one thing I like is the balance, and I've seen crappy GM's blow that up as well. I try to keep it pretty gritty (fights always seem to happen in the worst conditions in my games), but some people don't dig flattening ammo against armor all of the time. They want to pull off the exciting unrealistic crap that only happens in the movies. Thinking about how people will dump a system for new rules got me to thinking about some observations, try and follow my inane logic.
1. d20 Sucks. It forces it's players to think about twinking and not about the challenge of the game.
2. I still play d20. The GM I play with runs a fantastic setting and a great game, so I enjoy myself anyway.
3. regardless of how people feel, every game I have ever played had some room for improvement in their rules.
4. Yet the only ones I hated, were the ones where the GM sucked.
5. But since I'm playing, I'm still gonna have my fun.
6. SR4 may have even worse rules than SR3.
7. I kick ass as a GM, so my SR4 game will still be FUN!
8. Cause I don't let the rules "rule" my players style. I let them have fun no matter how wack their hair brained schemes are.
9. I like rules too, when I play Battletech or something competitive, not something story driven.
10. Speaking as a GM, we should remember we have choices. If GM's look at the new SR4 and decide it doesn't fit with what they like doing, they should skip it. I'm hoping streamlined rules will make a few other people take up the mantle and start spreading the love.
11. As long as a scrub ganger has a snowballs chance of hurting a seasoned vet it will still feel like SR to me.
12. If it doesn't, I'll be selling my copy of SR4 on E-Bay and continuing my SR3 game.
13. But... if that happens, I'll still be ready to play a game of SR4 if the GM is good

So in the end, do what you want, but don't bag on folks for doing what they want to, or bag on folks just trying to put out a product they hope will sell. If it ends up sucking bad and pissing everyone off, they lose money. If it just pisses US off and sells well to everyone else, well, that's capitalism.

The thing that bothers me is the apparent misuse of Wireknight and other playtesters. What the hell's the point sitting them down at a table, saying "ok, roll these, tell us what you think." followed by "hmm.... ok, interesting point of view... moving on...". I always thought it would be awesome to be able to play test or free lance in any way for the game I love, especially seeing someone like AH "moving on up", but this.......

All I can say is that I'm sorry WireKnight, and thanks for trying.

Since I'm not a play tester, I'm not sure exactly how Fan Pro handles comments. But I can tell you a little about software testing. (and not debugging, just getting an idea if people like it with user suggestions)
1. They usually have a lot of play testers (I'm not sure how many Fan Pro has recruited, so this might not stand up) Thus, they only pay attention to the suggestions that frequently come up from a majority of sources.
2. Is the fix cost effective? Suppose a lot of the play testers gripe about an aspect of the game. Does the proposed fix break something else? Is it too late to fix it without pushing back the publishing deadline?
3. Do all of the play testers chosen have different interests, and better yet, do they have a good mix of people familiar with SR and NOT familiar with Shadowrun.

Like I said, I don't know how Fan Pro is handling it, but I don't think Wire Knight (hopefully) was just plain ignored. It is frustrating to not see your ideas responded to, but that isn't the job of play tester, just give the suggestions and hope others share your opinion.
FanPro is a business, and a business in a the not so lucrative realm of Role Playing Games. Shadowrun is a nitch title, and I'm sure they would love to please everyone and sell a gajillion copies, but they got to go with what they can afford to do and with what they feel will make "most" folks happy.

I'd just like to add my 2 cents in the discussion. There are a lot of comments saying how SR4 will be less "simulationist" than SR3. Personally, I don't think SR has ever been simulationist. You all agree that the rules needed to be fixed, to make them somehow more in line with reality. In itself, it's a proof that the system already wasn't simulationist.
So, if SR4 just continue on the same trend as SR3 and previous incarnations of the game, and that you (the people asking for more realistic rules) like and play SR3, why would you presume that you won't like SR4?

I'm a playtester as well. I and others have been vocal about things we think need to be changed before they can be considered final. We've done our job. The final rules will be hammered down by Rob Boyle. He will be the one making the final rules choice among the suggestions we sent. The playtesters rarely all agreed on any topics, giving Rob diferent points of view to make the final call.
All I can say is that I think Rob is an open minded person, and if a suggestion is sound and well argumented, there are good chances he will listen and act accordingly. That is how it worked with most of my suggestions.
I sincerely think he will take the best out of all the playtesting comments and put them into SR4. Some playtesters actually like what SR4 has become. And if that makes me look like FanPro's lapdog, so be it.

For the record and give perspective on my opinion, I have to say that I'm in the group of people that think that rules are there only to support the gaming experience and the fun. Rules should never, in my opinion, get in the way of the game. I'm the kind of GM that disregarded most SR3 rules simply because they were not fun for me; I prefered to decide about the outcome of most situation without any dice roll involved, only my own judgement, with a single goal in mind: make sure my players have a good time. SR4 rules might make me actually use the rules more often.
I guess that makes my opinion diametrically opposed to WK's, but I think that's good that Rob got a wide spectrum of opinion.

Mikael Brodu

I've had that kind of reaction from another company I've playtested for. My playgroup was asked to try to break the system with what we were supposed to playtest with and we succeeded. We feedbacked the finding to the company and they came back with "We don't think people will play that way." Granted, this was a CCG as opposed to SR which is a RPG, but the similarities are surprising. I mean why playtest if you have already decided on the product? Are you trying to get a group of yes-persons to endorse your product? This is why I take a dim view of official "spin" and focus on game mechanics as it is being previewed.

either way, thanks for your side too Mike

Just to add to Adam's comment, he's correct. I am not, never have been, and never claimed to be a part of the Dev Team for SR4. My opinions are my own.

Bull

i saw several changes i made go into successive versions of the rules. the problem isn't that this suggestion or that suggestion was ignored. it's more that the overall direction of development was too far down the wrong path--wrong, at least, in the opinion of some of us--to be changed.

Well, I for one think, that if the Dev team did go down the wrong path, we should immediately declare war on Canada and drown all of Fan Pro with our pillaged Maple Syrup. ..... Nah, that's too much work, I'll just start playing Paranoia XP instead, that game looks friggin hilarious.

you say that like taking over canada isn't something that should be done anyway.

Hmm, you may be right!

I asked mfb this, and so I'd like to toss it out to the other playtesters as well. Have you guys actively tried to break the system? Have you run only starting characters? Characters with 10-20 karma? 50+ karma? 100+?

The first edition of Shadowrun had abusive loopholes you could drive a steamship through. The changes to this game are so huge, how can we know that new abusive loopholes aren't appearing?

I can't say for sure, but I'd bet on it, that the answer is yes. That's kind of what WK does. If it's not what he tried with SR4 (amongst/in addition to any and all other playtesting), suffice it to say I will be heartily surprised.

otaku mike: I too find the "realism" in SR3 rather dubious, and the cost brutal. I find that i have to switch my brain off for all sorts of action/event resolutions. Every time explosives come up. Every time BF/FA is used. Most if not all melee situtations. Etc.

But we are talking about placement on a scale, and the desire to push SR4 closer to the realistic modeling. Sure a lot of SR3 was failed realism modeling that ended up really only adding complexity and drugery to the rules. But the -attempt- certainly seemed to be there. What Wounded Ronin is talking about is a renewed attempt to have SR4 succeed in more places and to a greater extent than SR3 did.

There was a fork in the road leading from SR3. One headed towards more realistic modeling (probably better wording than simulation), the other towards more stylistic gaming. Fanpro some time back chose the path towards stylistic, while WK and others desire the other path.

But the cost of all those fixes on the way to realistic modeling? Generally the closer you try to model a complex system the more complexity you tend to add to your model. Also what is "realistic" seeming is surprisingly subjective, or at least contentious. Especially when you start mixing in future tech and fantasy elements. That is why i find myself rolling my eyes and snickering at Solstice's post. Many people can see the could of that path, but the should certainly looks to me like pure folly unless you are willing to have SR push itself further into a niche of people willing to take on a huge wave of rules to just get into the game.

I'm of the opinion that "realism" should never be the target of a P&P RPG, instead they should be aiming towards Verisimilitude. Realism indicates that something is true to life, Verisimilitude indicates that something merely seems to be true to life from a certain perspective, usually a willing, reality suspended perspective.

yeah, we broke it pretty good in several ways.

and again, i'll say that realistic rules != complex rules.

very true. though i do like the option of rolling for dodge, even if you can't do it every time. 'realism' isn't necessarily SR3's strong suit, though the framework is there for a fairly 'realistic' game. SR3's strong suit is player control. almost any character type imaginable can be created at chargen, player decisions affect every aspect of combat at every step of the combat turn, advancement is almost unlimited--you can do almost anything, with SR3.

and here, too, i don't think player control of the game needs to be sacrificed in order to make a game that's easier to play.

Mainly it has to do with magic aspects of the game. Don't start as a hermetic or shaman or adept but want to go there later? Too bad. Start as an adept but later want to cast a couple spells Out of luck. Aspected mage of some sort, but later want to sample the other side? BUH-bye. Only want to start with a bit of magic, putting more resources elsewhere? Options very limited. Can your character experience and be converted by Deep Resonance after creation? Uh-uh, at least until Deus comes back and even then that's leaving the rules reservation.

EDIT: Awakened in anyway otaku? Furgat 'bout it.

Before Magician's Way it was far worse, and choosing MW can partially alleviate some of these things. But you have to choose it up front and even if never use it you suffer the drawbacks such as your astral presense options and build costs.

Basically your magical class choice, and that is what it works like, is treated more like a metahuman type choice.

EDIT: Passed by might be a bit harsh. Fallen to middle of the pack is closer to it.

I suspect those people who say SR is 'realistic' (myself included) don't mean to indicate it's the sort of realistic model you could use in a physics model. It certainly isn't. But it's definitely one of the more realistic systems out there.

I mean compare firing a weapon in Shadowrun to WoD to D20 to Earthdawn. Which is the most 'realistic'? I daresay, Shadowrun. What about melee combat? Sure, SR has it's flaws, but it certainly beats D20 (alright, now I get to try and hit you! Oh, I missed. You try to hit me again...)

Yes, shadowrun, like all RPGs, requires a certain suspension of disbelief. The question then is how much suspension is required? I cannot play D20 modern because it's just too silly, too out there. It sounds like WK felt the same way about SR4. If the game is higher than your threshold, it's not realistic enough for you, even if you have a high threshold.

As for the changes... I suspect that if you guys said the whole attribute + skill vs. TN of 5 thing were bad, that's so core to the rules that they simply couldn't toss it out. Unfortunately, the testing only comes in when they feel like the groundwork is set, and they're cleaning up the details. I for one still feel that they shouldn't have set a drop dead date until they got most everything back from their playtesters.