As a note, Cyberpunk 3rd ed, or whatevre they're calling it now, has been "almost ready for release" for 3+ years now. It was supposed to be out at Gen Con 2003, and at the last minute "wasn't available" or some such. It's been in the works forever, and if anything, Shadowrun 4th may finally prompt it to actually get released. Not the other way around.

Bull

Well, yes and no. If you've read the original D20 OGL releases, WotC basically made the assumption that the core rulebooks are the big moneymakers in RPGs. Expansion books, while nice, simply aren't as big of a draw. So, they tossed their license wide open, making it so they wouldn't have to compete with other companies to keep their system filled with new concepts. However, this does mean that after a certain point, the core rulebooks will reach market saturation, and new releases will be needed. They pulled it once, with the 3.0-3.5 switchover; and they're doing something similar with the DMG II.

D&D is the 800-lb gorilla of gaming, so it doesn't exactly work like the small-timers. But similar dynamics, apply, only on a smaller scale. Changing editions isn't the *only* way a game company has of increasing cash flow, but it's a very effective one.

Sorry to be blunt, but could either of you provide a quote, or are you both trying to be facetious and just pulling stuff from thin air (again)?

Hence, why it was a sarcastic comment.

Which goes back to Snow Fox's comment about the very same people who could have been making SR3 grittier for the last umpteen books are the ones that can now magically/suddenly/freely implement said grit. In other words: what was keeping them from doing it all along?

Problem is your sarcastic comment follows what Snow Fox said and which she (to the best of my knowledge) was pulling from thin air. For reference:

None of the freelancers or developers I know have said any such thing. In fact as far as I'm concerned we have been working to get a grittier, more down-to-earth feel in the books ever since Dragons of the Sixth World.

The problem is Snow and you are implying (her openly, you sarcastically) that this is one of the reasons for the change when its not and never has been stated as such. It's simply the continuation of something we've already been doing.

Including it, or after the book about the major Great Dragons and several lesser dragons of the Sixth World?

I am pretty sure one of the early FAQs in the SR blog stated the intention of making 4th edition grittier and more street level. However, either my search fu is lacking, or the blog has been taken down, because I can not even find the cotemptuous "Swordfish Mustardball" crap. Rob does make a statement about grittiness in the podcast.

Be that as it may, it is some pointless whining and bickering.

Snow Fox's statement is a reminder that many of the people who have influenced SR3's current direction/demise are the ones developing SR4. (Note that I do not agree with the fatalistic outlook for SR3. But since abandonment is now its fate, I hope for the best for SR4.)

As far as making the world grittier, my suggestion would be to remind GM and player that it is not our current world with stuff added to it. Too often I see comments comparing perceptions and reactions of SR characters related to our current mind set which is influenced by our current experiences. Keep hammering home how it is not our relatively safe, secure, humdrum present with a bit of corp, magic, and cyber.

One of the biggest recent events in the timeline was the Seattle blackout. So what? We have blackouts now. Compare to SR1 history (which was all new back then) about being dragged from your home and relocated because of the Treaty of Denver. Now it is being rewritten that people didn't really have to move, that there were 'reservations' for the anglos or what-not. Or being pulled from your home on the night of rage, and the ensuing riots, fire and destruction.

Maybe it is not as gritty because the writers are skipping over some of the gritty details. Ghostwalker devastates Denver (however unlikely some think the event) is handled from a detached 3rd person point of view. From a news crew. Just like we get our watered down reality today. Why did they not go from the perspective of someone caught in the conflict? An astrally travelling mage who's curiosity got him too close, an Azzie security guy just doing his job, some of the border patrol guys between the sectors who have the dragon buzzing from sector to sector?

It used to be when I would read a SR book, I would be entertained. Now it is like homework, hard to keep from being bored, and hard to stay awake. But maybe I'm just getting old.

PS. But along that line, take some of the energy and passion you are putting into defending the product line into the product line.

As your example of "one of the biggest recent events" you picked the Seattle blackout? Uhh...okay.

Why? I asked you the question.

See, I've seen you make some comments about FASA, and I assume it may go more towards the direction FASA was going until it closed shop and Fanpro took over, but it's like "Don't blame us for Dragons of the Sixth World." Is there any single thing you can mention that FASA did right with the rules or setting that kept your playing for so long?

Your obviously misreading my posts and you are taking my words out of context - I was replying especifically to whether or not I thought Dragons included in the "grittier" trend and saying that it could have been otherwise. That being said, I never worked for FASA and I don't know the developers at the time. (Note that contrary to what you seem to think I very much like DotSW and I think its a great addition to any SR collection. It holds a special place in my heart not only because its my first published work but because it was a pleasure working with other authors on it).

I like most of what FASA did including stuff like Year of the Comet, and I was never one of the people complaining about the high-powered direction SR3 took, the campiness of SURGE or shedim, the overplaying of IEs, etc. I'm not saying I subscribed to the approach but I didn't dislike it and it didn't affect the way I percieved the game.

FYI, Dragons of the Sixth World is one of the favorites I mentioned before, and the main reason for that is because of the way FanPro did handled it, regardless of what the announced subject matter was. When I first heard FASA was doing a book on great dragons I was dead against it, I thought it wasn't going to work, the theme was too high-magic/too powerful for the contents to actually be of practical use for most campaigns. Boy was I proven wrong (IMHO). However, I believe FASA would have handled it differently (not better or worse just differently) in its day. At that point I only pitched for Lofwyr because I thought I could begin setting the groundwork for Shadows of Europe and I had what I thought was a cool idea for showing that humans with enough money, brains and determination can face up and outsmart event the macheavellian lizard.

I will add one more thing because I believe it is particularly relevant to this and other discussions on this sub-forum. It is also something the general public doesn't know: the aforementioned DotSW also marked a significant change in the development process, one which I'm told by some of the old hands FASA wasn't particularly fond of and which thankful FanPro changed. The way books are developed now means there's a lot more brainstorming, exchange of ideas, revisions, acid criticism and discussions between authors - a constant stream of input is offered by the developer and other authors all through the drafting period and there's even a "round-table" everybody-gets-to-comment stage in development, before we revise drafts into their final form. It isn't a "isolated" series of exchanges between the author and the developer and then the editor.

Some people have noted that, as compared to say SoNA or Threats2, different chapters in Shadows of Europe and the SOTAs (and basically all the recent books) offer threaded plots, material is linked better, cross-referenced and the books as a whole are more consistent and cohesive. This is because there was a change in development "policy", one which I hasten to add, is being used for SR4. This is why I find it misplaced that people are associating particular SR4 rules with particular authors as they did under SR3. While chapters are undoubtedly being written by one or two authors they no longer do so in a vacuum or under sole direction of the developer (as was often the case in SR3) - having seen from the inside how this system places checks and balances on development, I personally believe many people's fears are consequently misplaced (once again this is MHO and nothing else).

I guess I misread it, although I take offense at the suggestion that I didn't bother reading it before asking a follow-up question. That was uncalled-for.

I liked PoaD quite well. I recall as I was reading it, I started getting tired and needed to get to bed but could not quit reading it. I'd finish reading a bequest, and a couple of short bequests, and decide this is where I would stop for the night. Then not being able stop reading.

In contrast, I have tried reading The London SB at least a dozen times. I know I have fell asleep reading holding it at least two times. I have yet to read it throughout. Yes, it is an old book, but I hoped it would make my point without the author or a contributor having their feelings hurt.

That sums it up well. I'm not much of goggle fu, but earlier stuff is hard to find, like they realized maybe, just maybe, they offended people by being a little too flippant.

Again, Snow, please offer a quote or reference to where any developer or freelancer has said anything of the sort, let alone that this is a primary goal of the new edition or something its intended to fix. I'm pretty sure you won't find any such comment because it doesn't exist.

If anything it's been FanPro's goal to instill more grit back into the setting after the high-flying stuff at the tail end of FASA's run (whether or not this would have been FASA's intention is unknown). In fact, it's pretty much been part of the brief given by the developer over the past 6-7 books to make whatever we writers can grittier and provide street-level hooks when possible.

References to SR4 being grittier are meant to be seen in that light - ie. as a continuing evolution and extension of a trend which FanPro has already been applying in SR3. Where SR4 has an edge (as it were) is that simply it allows FanPro to introduce or revise certain formats that have become standard under SR3 to enhance that feel.

Let me provide an example: SR3 introduced the Shadows of books, and while I love the material they introduced and the picture they paint of the Sixth World and how necessary that picture was, I'll be the first to admit that the format is not conductive of introducing a lot of street-level information (ie. try describing the treacherous Czech arcane black market scene when you have 5000 words to describe the whole country). So while we did attempt to make things grittier and down to earth as possible in these books, sometimes the format doesn't help. SR4 will provide us with a means to do this with the new location book format which allows us to do what we've been doing but within a format which allows greater detail, local grit and street-level material if you will. This is simply a progression not something new. In fact I believe the Shadows of will be essential in using and provide context for the new books like Runner Havens to their full extent.

The reason for changing the core ruleset has nothing to do with the level of "grittiness" and I'd challenge you to provide a quote or reference that indicates otherwise in any formal or informal announcement. Unfortunately you're letting your bias against the new edition taint your perception of what has been said and while there are undoubtedly loads of reasons to rile against the new edition this isn't one of them.

From the fanpro German forums, translated by Hermit (IIRC, Hermit is German)


Search-Fu Strikes again. This is Probably what Snow's refering to. Though I too remember many oterh comments about SR's grittiness - a lot of it may have been just dumpshockers. After this much time it's hard to keep straight who said what.

Thanks Eldritch, Rod also says something to that effect in the podcast (though I believe its in the next installment).

I still see no comment to the effect that the designers/developers "feel it (SR3) has lost its "grittiness"", so my response stands. From all I've gathered, Rob does intend to make SR4 grittier and harsher, but that is simply a logical continuation of what FanPro has been doing not something that is being (re)introduced to change anything (much less the ruleset).

Perhaps that's what Fox is referring to, the grittiness compared to when Shadowrun was published by FASA?