It's time for me to say goodbye to SR4.

I've not exactly been one of SR4's greatest supporters, and now that I have the text, I find that most things are as bad as I feared, with a few pleasant surprises and a few unexpected shocks.

SR4 is a visually appealing product. If you just flip open to a random spot in the book, it's more stylish than any other SR product. Going by looks alone, I'd think SR4 was a winner.

SR4 is a mostly competently written product in terms of prose, editing, and setting, at least by RPG standards. There is an overreliance in all SR work on trite, contrived plots that can only be generated with a liberal helping of Deus Ex Machina (*cough* dragons *cough*), and shameless stealing of ideas that were cool in movies but end up looking like pathetic wannabes in SR. But despite that, the writing does in many places make the setting come alive, and the advance in technology has a lot of potential.

SR4 rules, however, are embarassing to read. We've covered many of the flaws on these boards already. There are numerous places where the authors seem to have no clue how their own mechanics work, where there are glaring balance issues that are easily fixed, where there are fundamental balance issues that cannot be fixed, and so on. There are even spots that essentially say, "Look, we screwed up the rules here--you figure it out!" To some extent, this is expected from the first edition of a game, which SR4 is despite the title. However, the quality of the rules is worse than I can excuse even for a first edition game. I buy games in large part for the rules. I want the rules to help me out as a GM and as a player--they help decide what can happen, how it can happen, keep things fair, and so on. I want them to benefit me and generally get out of the way. SR4 rules do the opposite for me--at every turn I trip over them, they generate absurdity, are horribly abusable, and aren't even all that fast to resolve (though they are slightly faster than SR3 in my hands). No thanks! I will ignore the rules if they get in the way of the story, as SR4 asks, but good rules should be well-matched to the stories often told in the setting, and good rules therefore mostly won't get in the way. SR3 rules could have used a lot of improvement; throwing away three editions' worth of refinement and starting anew with all new problems is distressing. If the authors lacked the rudimentary mathematical awareness or the time to get the rules right, why didn't they get more high-quality playtesters and listen to what they said?

I think the conception of SR4 is my least favorite aspect. Unlike the others, this is subjective. SR4 is a dumbed-down game. At almost every turn, it sacrifices richness for simplicity, player control for hard limits and roll-and-pray, character talent and skill for game-breaking munchkins and the utter superiority of spirits and dragons over humanity. It is not even that simple, given the piles of modifiers to apply. It is not a game where I feel empowered as a player (no dice pools) or as a character (hard caps on skills). It is not a game in which I can envision placing a character who will have a long future of self-advancement (hard caps on skills, fixed TN system inherently only works in a narrow range even if I remove the caps). It is a game of mediocrity. It seems immature. I would possibly have enjoyed it when I was twelve and outgrown it by sixteen.

Most people don't think of role playing games as teaching tools, but I think that aspect is valuable as well. I would argue that previous editions of Shadowrun were among the very best RPGs in terms of the benefits they bestowed upon players. Because of the tactical considerations with target numbers and pools, previous editions encouraged players to develop a sense of probability, a sense of exponential scaling, and the ability to judge risk and plan accordingly. Because of the futuristic/fantasy Earth setting, it rewarded players and GMs who did research on real-life locations and events with a richer roleplaying experience. The latter is still mostly true (although every time the setting incorporates a nonsensical or ill-researched aspect, I cringe), but the former is mostly not. I would no longer recommend SR4 for my friends' children. I wouldn't advise against it, but the teaching aspect is diminished, and the approach seems to be to simplify to the point where the game teaches nothing. This may sell, but I would do the opposite and include little tutorials within the game explaining how to play the game well, and these tutorials would develop thinking skills as a secondary benefit.

SR4 may end up being profitable. A game that I might enjoy might not sell as well.

But I do not think it will be profitable because of me. I've spent about $1500 on SR products over the last 13 years, and another $300 or so on Earthdawn mostly because I liked SR (and it too was a pretty cool game). Once I have the last of the SR3 books, I plan on spending about $0 on SR4 products, and I have no interest in looking at any other FanPro product. If FanPro comes out with compelling SR4 stories and setting expansions, especially with the power players working from the shadows and manipulating events in realistic ways through skill and knowledge rather than unassailable power, maybe I'll buy some non-rules supplements. Maybe not.

Perhaps SR4 will do well; perhaps not. I do know that it will do what it does without me.

Finally, since I have only been on DS to discuss SR4, and I have tired of SR4, I won't be around after any discussion on this thread has died off. Thanks to those of you who fostered interesting discussions.

(Two asides for unfinished business.)

Well, I'm pretty sure, that he is not from my county, so I don't feel insulted.^^

Honestly, sorry to see you go.

I've removed the sentences because the "this country" phrase didn't really make sense given the audience, and it gets rather awkward when properly qualified and justified with appeal to the primary market and so on.

That said, I absolutely did not say that the only reason to disagree with me was because one didn't enjoy thinking. In fact, I said the opposite--it was subjective, based upon what you like in your games. However, several SR freelancers have said here that SR needs to appeal to younger players, players have complained that they don't know how to use combat pool, and so on. If you can make a case that the changes to SR4 were not made to reduce the thinking burden, please make it instead of vacuously claiming an insult.

Otherwise, if you don't want to think about that aspect of the game, why view it as an insult? If you do, why take it as an insult if I point out that some people don't?

Added in edit--Synner, I should have said cyberware/bioware originally if I didn't before. Both used to affect magic. I stand by the claim that magic 6 isn't particularly better than magic 5, and while it is theoretically possible to make cyberware and bioware mostly useless, having it in the game at all is strongly indicative of exactly the kind of situation I pointed out above. It turns out that it's much more advantageous than I had thought; you can take just about any magical character and make them better by adding a point of bioware. If the whole disagreement was simply because I did not say "cyberware and bioware" instead of "cyber", I'm sorry I didn't clear it up earlier.

Ellery, I'm always sorry to see one of us old dogs disappear (hell, I'm still hoping Blackjack will come back someday), but I understand your point entirely.

Myself, I'm still holding off judgement on SR4 until I've finished reading and comparing it to SR3, but I may end up doing the same as you if SR4 proves unsalvagable. Ironic, considering it's debute is what brought me back to Dumpshock after a two year hiatus.

Happy trails to you.

blakkie--
In games where geases were ignored or the conditions were rarely unfulfilled, I agree. Power for free is always better than power with a minimal drawback.

The core book doesn't have geas so that's not an entirely equal comparison; you could make your spells all require a fetish but you'd be helpless if you lost the fetish(es).

The example geasa in MitS are all things that you want to be doing less than half the time as a shadowrunner. If they break that geas, they get +1TN in addition to not having the magic point. In games where the rules were followed as given, geasa were a major restriction (except possibly the talisman geas).

People who gain enough karma to initiate once in SR3 have almost no reason to not take a point of cyber/bioware. There I agree that the pressure is the other way. However, for whatever reason, post-chargen implantation of 'ware seems to be rare in practice in many games (in mine, and I've seen a number of others observe the same thing). Thus, the initial TN6 pressure is the major factor in SR3 in keeping cyber/bio out of mages.

Also, I'm not sure why you think you'll see me in the main forum. I've not posted there yet, and I see no compelling reason to do so in the future.


Nightmare--
I'm not an old dog of DS. It was good for discussing SR4, so I showed up for that (note the date I joined). I was aware of DS, of course, long before that, but didn't see a reason to post. I am an old dog of SR, but I'm not really lost from SR, just from the SR revenue stream.

Anyway, good luck with SR4. If you do decide it's worth your effort, there are certainly a lot of ideas for good improvements floating around on the boards.

blakkie--
I'm arguing the same thing as before. Please explain why you think otherwise.

Mm hm. I already said I was leaving after any discussion died off.

I suppose you could try to kill it, if you wanted me to leave sooner.

I haven't made all of these points before. Some I have made, at which point people said I didn't have SR4 so I couldn't know. Well, now I do have it, and can explain with full knowledge why I have various opinions. (For the most part, the previous criticisms about lack of knowledge were invalid, unfortunately.)

I see you're trying for the kill! Maybe I'll wait a few hours and see if you've succeeded. Hint: if you keep posting to the thread, it's not dead yet. Undead? Perhaps.

blakkie--
Well, the point about RPGs being beneficial isn't one I've made at any length before here. I happen to think it pretty important, although obviously there's much more to education than playing RPGs.

Also, the post indirectly highlights that long-time fans are a lot more valuable than first-time sales of a shiny new product. Once the buzz has faded, it is long-time fans who put out the money to sustain the product.

And I haven't explained this clearly what I liked about SR before and like in RPGs in general. My explanation still isn't that clear, but if someone knows of other games with those characteristics (rules strongly complement setting, promote player control and tactics, and are rich enough to help develop thinking skills), I'd like to hear about them.

Fox--
Major changes to games are divisive. Anything that promotes strong divisions also tends to create feelings of opposing groups, and those groups tend to attack each other. I'm not surprised. It's human nature. Also, the stuff with blakkie is the result of previous problems I've had with him--that too is human nature, but isn't that relevant to attacks on me for making negative comments while leaving.

For the record Ellery, it's been a pleasure debating stuff with you in the past. Even though I dare say we won't agree on many fundamentals, you've made your points more clearly and have proved level-headed than the vast majority of the posters on both sides of the SR3/SR4 debate. I honestly think if more people had taken your route discussions here would have proven more fruitful and less bitter.

On my part I understand your disappointment with SR4 and am sorry to see you leave. I do hope, if nothing else, you will find future material to your taste though.

Thanks Synner.

I tossed in the spoilers because I had agreed to follow up in previous threads (hence "unfinished business"). If I am leaving, I can't follow up. I'm just fulfilling my committments, or at least making an offer to do so.

I'm not sure what blakkie's talking about in the other paragraphs, and I've had bad luck asking for clarifications, so I'll just shrug noncommittally.

*cough*

Can't say I see how that's relevant. *shrugs noncommittally*

Maine is all in the Eastern time zone by the way.



For me the one thing I'm worried about is what seems to be a greater emphasis on the "cyber" and less emphasis on the "punk" part of SR4.

I for one like the new mechanics. I can actually use riggers and deckers now. Though I also like the old mechanics as well. Each has it's benifits and hinderances. SR2 and 3 was great when I was in college and had players that liked to figure out how to use TN and Pools to best advantage. I'm still cursing my player who figured out that he could delay his action untill after the BBEG had thier action, then use all his combat pool to counter and then get his first action in the next initiative pass and usee all his combat pool again against her and maul her in two actions. Nowadays SR4 would be a better fit for my group since I'm gaming with some younger players who arn't nearly as into manipulating the system to thier advantage.

It also depends on what part of the SR timeline you want to play in. If I plan on running with new meta-plots in the game then SR4 is the way to go. Though I do have a thing for bug city and anything to do with Dunklzhan still alive, so I'd use SR3 for any of those games.

No one says that anyone HAS to change to SR4. If you don't like it fine, if you like it fine. Each has thier own use.

Just some thoughts.

I'm still waiting for the book. But... from what I've seen it strikes me as flawed but fixable. ( which is basically the same diagnosis I gave SR3 ) I'm holding out hope still. Mainly because I believe some strategically placed house rules can fix this puppy.

We haven't clashed on the boards, because I generally refuse to argue on the Internet (you've all probably seen the (rather insulting) graphic) but I'm sorry to see you go. I for one greatly enjoy SR4 and the glaring rule problems that so many evangelize haven't been a problem for me over the last month as I played the game so I hope that your decisions here are based not on theoretical appliction of the rules but practical.

SOrry to see you go, Ellery, I agree with you on most of your points.

Well, I fell in love with Puppetland when I first read it, many moons ago. I even have the dead tree version.

For me, cyberpunk has always been about two competing themes:
one that there are no 'superheros' and no 'supervillians', there is nothing special about the high and mighty in the world, they can be outgunned, outmanuvered, and so on. Some punk from the street can, with a combination of luck and skill, take them out. See how often this happens in the 'classic' cyberpunk literature. So, in short everyone is brought down to the level of the guy on the street.

Theme two, is how easy it is to become a 'superhero' you go into the cyber clinic as joe average, but come out as superman.

The combination of having everyone in the world brought down at the same time they are exalted makes for an interesting setting.

Early SR was like this on steroids. You had regular 'fanatsy' stuff, but it was 'brought down' as well. Elves were no longer immortal bow wielding pixies who lived happily in the woods, but instead were just poor schlubs trying to get ahead in a dog-eat-dog world. Dragons were playing the same song of control, greed, and power that you can hear in every corporate boardroom.

On the other hand, the 'exaltation' available was even greater, you could be an elf, mage, with cybernetic parts! You could use your magic power to leap from rooftop to rooftop, to avoid the morning traffic. You could use your cybernetic vision enhancements to cast a spell or some poor chump who though he was safely hidden in the fog.

SR started to lose me when they made the movers and shakers in the world, not 'ordinary' people (even if they happened to be dragons, or whatever, the whole points was that dragons were ordinary).) Once the story of the game became about unbeatable immortal elves, and dragons that were unstoppable in whatever they wanted to do (oh, and maybe how the flea-like player characters could play some small and insignificant part in their plans...)

By doing this, SR lost both the feeling of exaltation (the elves and dragons were always better than you, no matter what) and the feeling that everyone else was in the same gutter you were, but maybe they were head up in stead of head down.

So far, I'm not getting a good feeling from SR4, in that I feel neither exalted nor brought low by the setting or the rules for playing in that setting.

i'm pretty much with ell on this one, and for largely the same reasons. SR4 is a much, much more limited game than SR3, in lots and lots of ways--most of them ways that matter to me, as a gamer. i can see what was attempted with the mechanics, and while i'm on the fence as to the worthiness of the design goals, i definitely think that the game fails everywhere except the design goals (and i'm not even sure they hit those 100%).

i was going to cite examples, but hell. we've got almost a years' worth of threads that adequately explain the specifics of what i think is wrong with the system. the long and short of it is that it's just not a fun game, to me. i'm going to continue playing SR3 or a modified version of it. depending on whether or not i like where SR4's storylines go, i might pick up the occasional supplement. but i'm not going to be playing SR4.

blakkie, you're a useless twit. stop typing.

If you want a game with streamlined rules that very strongly 'enforce' the setting, check out Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (2nd edition, I don't have much experience with 1st). Those combat rules are brutal, just like they are supposed to be. Using magic is dangerous, so one must carefully weigh the benefits of a spell before casting it.

The setting is oppresive, dangerous, and very bleak. I love it.

Blakkie is really being an asshole.

Ellery, you should understand that people who enjoy SR 4 don´t like to think as much as you about rules, but may be more or less inclined to think about other things. I won´t deny that the little implications of disdain does not bother me, but I can understand how they can be hard to resist. Your preferences are very clear, and mine (and others like me) should not be that hard to understand. There´s no need to even imply that one preference is more virtuous than the other. (And please do not deny that you made such an implication, you were even making up an example to prove it.)

whether or not a given player, or even most players, put much thought into the rules doesn't enter into it. game mechanics impact setting, whether you're consciously aware of it or not. therefore, the game design should keep the setting in mind. if the players are as aware of the rules as ellery is, they'll appreciate rules that back up the setting for specific reasons. if not, they'll appreciate rules that back up the setting for reasons they can't quite put their fingers on.

Heh, let me see if I can come up with a good metaphor...

Imagine that you have a pretty good dinner plate. Then one day, you find that your cat has taken a giant crap on the dinner plate. If you don't find cat crap too disgusting, imagine that it has worms or something in it...

Now, will you eat off the plate in the future? It's glazed ceramic, so it will sterelize quite easily... But will you ever feel as good, eating out of the plate that your cat once took a crap in?

Do you cut off your fingers when they become dirty?