Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: jgilmour@*****.com (Jonathan and Jamie Gilmour)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 20:11:39 -0500
Hello. I am new to the list and Fourth edition is my first foray into
the world of shadowrun. I have finally assembeled a group of people to
play with and I am over all very happy with fourth edition.
I'm wondering from the long time players what kind of house rules you
are adapting to 4th ed to fill out any gaps you feel are in it from
pervious versions.

Right now I am playing a P.I. with some mage skills. His discipline I
created for him is Demonology.
I just joined the list a few days ago and read some complaints from
pervious versions about the Magical Disciplines losing some "flair"
from pervious version, but I really liked creating my own.

Thanks!
-jon
Message no. 2
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 21:03:39 -0500
---------------------- multipart/signed attachment

On Dec 2, 2005, at 20:11, Jonathan and Jamie Gilmour wrote:

> Hello. I am new to the list and Fourth edition is my first foray into
> the world of shadowrun. I have finally assembeled a group of people to
> play with and I am over all very happy with fourth edition.
> I'm wondering from the long time players what kind of house rules you
> are adapting to 4th ed to fill out any gaps you feel are in it from
> pervious versions.
>

Unfortunately there is no real way to make house rules to have SR4
play like a previous version. The game mechanics are different,
abilities have changed, and the back story has changed
significantly. I would not worry about making house rules to try to
mimic a game you never played. Basically, play SR4 as it is
written. When you find things that are difficult in the game, or
unrealistic, etc. make the house rule to cover that case. And then
tell the list. :-)

> Right now I am playing a P.I. with some mage skills. His discipline I
> created for him is Demonology.
> I just joined the list a few days ago and read some complaints from
> pervious versions about the Magical Disciplines losing some "flair"
> from pervious version, but I really liked creating my own.

Again, do not worry about the differences between hermetic and
shamanic (and others) from previous editions. The game mechanics for
magic has changed enough to make previous editions almost useless.
Enjoy what you have and try not to look back. :-)

--Scott


---------------------- multipart/signed attachment--
Message no. 3
From: jgilmour@*****.com (Jonathan and Jamie Gilmour)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 23:02:16 -0500
no no. I didn't want house rules to make it more like previous
versions. I was just wondering what some of you were implementing as
house rules with this version...
I am really enjoying 4th ed. I don't want it to be like any thing
else.. I was just wonder what some of you were coming up with to spice
it up..
Also.. What traditions for magic are some of you coming up with?


On 12/3/05, Scott Harrison <scott@**********.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 2, 2005, at 20:11, Jonathan and Jamie Gilmour wrote:
>
> > Hello. I am new to the list and Fourth edition is my first foray into
> > the world of shadowrun. I have finally assembeled a group of people to
> > play with and I am over all very happy with fourth edition.
> > I'm wondering from the long time players what kind of house rules you
> > are adapting to 4th ed to fill out any gaps you feel are in it from
> > pervious versions.
> >
>
> Unfortunately there is no real way to make house rules to have SR4
> play like a previous version. The game mechanics are different,
> abilities have changed, and the back story has changed
> significantly. I would not worry about making house rules to try to
> mimic a game you never played. Basically, play SR4 as it is
> written. When you find things that are difficult in the game, or
> unrealistic, etc. make the house rule to cover that case. And then
> tell the list. :-)
>
> > Right now I am playing a P.I. with some mage skills. His discipline I
> > created for him is Demonology.
> > I just joined the list a few days ago and read some complaints from
> > pervious versions about the Magical Disciplines losing some "flair"
> > from pervious version, but I really liked creating my own.
>
> Again, do not worry about the differences between hermetic and
> shamanic (and others) from previous editions. The game mechanics for
> magic has changed enough to make previous editions almost useless.
> Enjoy what you have and try not to look back. :-)
>
> --Scott
>
>
>
Message no. 4
From: snicker@*********.net (Snicker)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:10:46 -0600
At 08:03 PM 12/3/2005, Scott Harrison wrote:

> Unfortunately there is no real way to make house rules to have SR4
>play like a previous version. The game mechanics are different,
>abilities have changed, and the back story has changed
>significantly.

I think I missed the story or something - what's changed?

Snicker
Message no. 5
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:14:14 -0500
On Dec 7, 2005, at 19:10, Snicker wrote:

> At 08:03 PM 12/3/2005, Scott Harrison wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately there is no real way to make house rules to
>> have SR4
>> play like a previous version. The game mechanics are different,
>> abilities have changed, and the back story has changed
>> significantly.
>
> I think I missed the story or something - what's changed?
>

Have you a copy of SR4 to read? If not, look at the web site and
read the FAQ that lists a bunch of changes. You start to get an idea
from them. If it interests you get a copy of SR4 to see the gory
details. Basically it boils down to SR4 is not a continuation of SR
1-3, but rather a new game that only resembles Shadowrun in the hopes
that people who play Shadowrun will put money down for it so it is
not a bust a start. It appears the game is targeted toward new
players. It has simplified things, made things more uniform, etc.
Some is good. Some is bad. For those that really enjoy the setting
of previous SR versions, the universe for SR4 has changed so much
that you cannot play the old way in the new world. My group will
probably never go on to SR4. If I play it some day it will most
likely be with new players.

--
·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑
·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯 Scott
Harrison
Message no. 6
From: snicker@*********.net (Snicker)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:29:49 -0600
At 08:14 PM 12/7/2005, Scott Harrison wrote:

> Have you a copy of SR4 to read? If not, look at the web site and
>read the FAQ that lists a bunch of changes. You start to get an idea
>from them. If it interests you get a copy of SR4 to see the gory
>details. Basically it boils down to SR4 is not a continuation of SR
>1-3, but rather a new game that only resembles Shadowrun in the hopes
>that people who play Shadowrun will put money down for it so it is
>not a bust a start. It appears the game is targeted toward new
>players. It has simplified things, made things more uniform, etc.
>Some is good. Some is bad. For those that really enjoy the setting
>of previous SR versions, the universe for SR4 has changed so much
>that you cannot play the old way in the new world. My group will
>probably never go on to SR4. If I play it some day it will most
>likely be with new players.


Hrm - I *do* have a copy of SR4, and read everything, but I really didn't
see any "retcon" activity. Yeah, it's simplified a bit, and I can't say
that I'm all that pleased with the new similarities between Shamans, Mages,
Dec-- erm... "Hackers", and Technomancers, but they're all things I can
adapt to or easily change. What I was asking about was specific
alterations to established "canon" - I didn't notice any and was afraid I
was being obtuse.

Snicker
Message no. 7
From: swiftone@********.org (Brett Sanger)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:38:09 -0500
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 09:14:14PM -0500, Scott Harrison wrote:
> details. Basically it boils down to SR4 is not a continuation of SR
> 1-3, but rather a new game that only resembles Shadowrun in the hopes
> that people who play Shadowrun will put money down fr it so it is

Realize also that many of us don't feel that way. SR4 to me is the same
old SR feel as the previous 3 editions. The mechanics changes have made
very little difference in the feel...no more so than previous edition
changes. Magicians still rock if unopposed, deckers/hackers are still
essential, Johnsons still screw the runner, and cyber is still an edge
over meat.

I'm quite curious how a group ran "the old way" that doesn't work pretty
much the same in SR4. Or maybe I'm not.

--
SwiftOne / Brett Sanger
swiftone@********.org
Message no. 8
From: swiftone@********.org (Brett Sanger)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:41:27 -0500
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 09:38:09PM -0500, Brett Sanger wrote:
> I'm quite curious how a group ran "the old way" that doesn't work pretty
> much the same in SR4. Or maybe I'm not.

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 09:14:14PM -0500, Scott Harrison wrote:
> My group will
> probably never go on to SR4. If I play it some day it will most
> likely be with new players.

Oh! That's it. You've only read the book. I admit, I had some
concerns. But a few weeks of playing showed that this is still
Shadowrun.

Play it, THEN make your opinion.
--
SwiftOne / Brett Sanger
swiftone@********.org
Message no. 9
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 22:02:21 -0500
On Dec 7, 2005, at 21:41, Brett Sanger wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 09:38:09PM -0500, Brett Sanger wrote:
>> I'm quite curious how a group ran "the old way" that doesn't work
>> pretty
>> much the same in SR4. Or maybe I'm not.
>
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 09:14:14PM -0500, Scott Harrison wrote:
>> My group will
>> probably never go on to SR4. If I play it some day it will most
>> likely be with new players.
>
> Oh! That's it. You've only read the book. I admit, I had some
> concerns. But a few weeks of playing showed that this is still
> Shadowrun.
>
> Play it, THEN make your opinion.

Yes, I have not been able to play it yet. So my opinions are based
on only reading the PDF. I will try to play it, but that may be
difficult in the middle of the mountains. :-)

--
·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑
·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯 Scott
Harrison
Message no. 10
From: rencheple@*******.net (Tim Martin)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:29:34 -0500
Scott Harrison wrote:
> I will try to play it, but that may be difficult in the middle of
> the mountains. :-)
You are in the Mountain's Shadow and can't find a shadow-running team?
That is ironic on a couple of levels...
Message no. 11
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 06:35:47 -0800 (PST)
> Oh! That's it. You've only read the book. I admit, I had some
> concerns. But a few weeks of playing showed that this is still
> Shadowrun.
>
> Play it, THEN make your opinion.

For the record, and because your post feels a bit snippy to me...

When the first voices were raised in protest of a new edition, no
matter what the reason for the protest was, those posters were told:

"First READ the new edition, THEN make your opinion."

Now the book is out. People have read it. They still don't like it.
So now, before their criticism is valid, they must PLAY the new
edition. Just READING it is suddenly not enough to justify a
negative opinion.

Tell me... when critics of 4th Ed. have played it and STILL don't
like it... will they then be told "oh, you have only PLAYED it...
first LIVE the new edition, THEN make your opinion".

If I were at all in a mood to be snippy... or if I'd had anything
besides caffiene to drink today... a phrase akin to "bite me,
fanboy!" would probably sneak into my post somewhere.

If our criticisms of the edition are never going to be valid in the
minds of its proponents, then we could have stuck with the comments
we made last March. Or, to put it another way... if our criticisms
are always going to be dismissed out of hand, that gives us
permission to similarly dismiss --out of hand-- anything said in
favor of the new edition.

======Korishinzo
--Four means death in Japanese... I'll stick to 3 editions, thank you


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 12
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:43:29 -0500
On Dec 12, 2005, at 09:35, Ice Heart wrote:

>
> =======
> Korishinzo
> --Four means death in Japanese... I'll stick to 3 editions, thank you
>

The ZEN of Shadowrun. :-)

--
·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑
·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯 Scott
Harrison
Message no. 13
From: rencheple@*******.net (Tim Martin)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:18:01 -0500
Ice Heart wrote:
> Now the book is out. People have read it. They still don't like it.
>
While you are not the only person, or the first, to write posts this
way, I'm going to pick on you because you are the most recent. No
offense is intended.

It seems that most of the folks critical of the 4th edition always seem
to word their posts as if they speak for everyone. This is not the case.

I can say, without reservation, that* I /like /Shadowrun 4th Edition*.
I like the continued story. I like the utilitarian, modular nature of
the rules. I think the mechanics are easier for someone to pick up now
than they were with 1st edition. I sense that this system will be
significantly easier to add to in the long run. It's got a firm
foundation - not a lot of trim and trapping yet, but a firm foundation.
And for me, that is what makes a game enjoyable. If my players and I
can focus on the story and the characters and not have to devote a lot
of attention to the mechanics, then it's a good thing.

Fourth edition is first I've played or GMed since first edition was on
the streets in the 1990's. Since then I've been to Conspiracy X, Ars
Magica and Earthdawn. I had to relearn everything when I picked up the
4th edition, but I would have had to for 3rd or 2nd, anyway, so no loss
there. That said, I can't speak to if 4th is BETTER than 2nd or 3rd
edition, nor does it really matter to me.

To emphasize, a vocal portion (minority or majority) does not speak for
everyone. Read the book, play a session or two if possible, and draw
your own conclusions. If the topic comes up for discussion, feel free
to list the reasons that you do or do not like it (as many have done
intelligently on both sides). But remember that this is an issue of
opinion and not fact. Simply because the reasons you don't like it are
perfectly clear to you, remember that not everyone, perhaps not even a
majority, share your opinions.

Just my 2¢

Tim
Message no. 14
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:29:44 +0100
According to Tim Martin, on 12-12-05 19:18 the word on the street was...

> While you are not the only person, or the first, to write posts this
> way, I'm going to pick on you because you are the most recent. No
> offense is intended.

Save your breath, she won't change ... ;)

> I had to relearn everything when I picked up the
> 4th edition, but I would have had to for 3rd or 2nd, anyway, so no loss
> there.

That's not entirely true -- SR1 -> SRII is pretty easy, and SRII -> SR3
is as well (trust me, like many here, I did both :) SR3 -> SR4 is
actually a much bigger step, but because the SR4 rules are much simpler
it's not nowhere near as drastic as it could have been.

> That said, I can't speak to if 4th is BETTER than 2nd or 3rd
> edition, nor does it really matter to me.

My opinion is that neither is really better. Like I said, SR4 is
simpler, but that doesn't make it better; SR3 has more variation, but
that also doesn't make it better.

> To emphasize, a vocal portion (minority or majority) does not speak for
> everyone.

IIRC, I already pointed this out on this list a decade ago, but people
who don't like something are usually a lot more vocal about it than
people who do like that same thing. In a democracy, how many people do
you see demonstrating _for_ a decision made by the government, for
example? But if you were to go and ask people, you'd find that the lack
of "pro" demonstrators doesn't mean a lack of agreement. It's almost
exactly the same with game rules.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Please do not read the lyrics whilst listening to the recordings.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 15
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:53:01 -0500
On Dec 12, 2005, at 13:18, Tim Martin wrote:

>
> It seems that most of the folks critical of the 4th edition always
> seem to word their posts as if they speak for everyone. This is
> not the case.

I hope my posts have not led to to think that I speak for everyone.
I have been attempting to state things is straight facts. I hope my
opinions were made clear enough. If I have not, please call me on it.

> I can say, without reservation, that* I /like /Shadowrun 4th
> Edition*. I like the continued story. I like the utilitarian,
> modular nature of the rules. I think the mechanics are easier for
> someone to pick up now than they were with 1st edition. I sense
> that this system will be significantly easier to add to in the long
> run. It's got a firm foundation - not a lot of trim and trapping
> yet, but a firm foundation. And for me, that is what makes a game
> enjoyable. If my players and I can focus on the story and the
> characters and not have to devote a lot of attention to the
> mechanics, then it's a good thing.

I am a programmer. I like simple rules that are consistent. SR4
makes a lot of things easier. However, that is not my big
complaint. Mine is the fact that the game differs from previous SR
radically. The concept of some of the characters we run in our SR3
campaign will not work. We have characters that have been played for
years with 300 karma. Some of the players have concentrated on
making skills at levels 8 to 10. Our campaigns take on an epic
scope. Think of an MC raid in WoW. Porting these characters to SR4
will not work. Basically, these characters cannot continue to
progress in the canon SR universe. With players that have developed
characters over so many years, such that we have a HUGE history, we
do not lightly give up playing our campaign. Therefore, as I have
said before I will most likely need to do another group to play SR4.

--
·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑
·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯 Scott
Harrison
Message no. 16
From: jgilmour@*****.com (Jonathan and Jamie Gilmour)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:57:06 -0500
"Our campaigns take on an epic scope. Think of an MC raid in WoW.
Porting these characters to SR4 will not work. Basically, these
characters cannot continue to progress in the canon SR universe. With
players that have developed characters over so many years, such that
we have a HUGE history, we do not lightly give up playing our
campaign."

Believe me, I love my characters in any game I have played. But why
not as DM, talk to your players and try to develop your story so that
their old characters become prime runner NPCs? Or even better *gasp*
run one last SR3 game and kill them off in a grand and dramatic way
that makes your players feel that all the time they had with their
characters was worth it, and that sets your group up to introduce
their new characters? Have them save the fraggin world from
destruction and become legends in the shadowrun community whose name
is whispered in the most respectful of tones, and who's tales are told
on the cold cold sprawl nights huddled over a mug of Soykaf. As both a
player and DM that has had epic characters and ran with them, THIS is
the reason I became attached to my character. If my DM had killed me
with a falling cow then I would have been pissed, but I died saving
the world and doing what I was there for. Now I think I had read on
the official site there is a book coming out for SR3 players to run
one last campaign to lead into SR4
Actually here
http://www.shadowrunrpg.com/products/product.php?i=25014&title=System+Failure

IF your group doesn't like it after you do this, and try out a couple
games with 4th and start their new journey to Prime then shelf the
book, and press rewind. Keep the old player sheets and just keep
playing third. But the story (IMHO) has to move forward. If I had
players who have been playing the same character for too long I tend
to up the peril more and more and up MY storytelling more and more and
bring the circle to close. As a long time WOW player I love the MC
raids. I love epic crap, don't get me wrong.. But the most fun I have
had are levels 10ish - 35 Thats why I have 3 level 60s and about 10
alts.

If shadowrun 4th edition was aimed mostly at the characters that
players have been playing since 1st edition then I for one would never
had started playing. And my group and I are loving it..
Message no. 17
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:06:41 -0800 (PST)
> It seems that most of the folks critical of the 4th edition >
always seem to word their posts as if they speak for everyone. >
This is not the case.

Ummm, likewise no offense, but you seem to have completely missed the
point of my post. However, my phrasing was not intended to claim
everyone feels one way or everyone feels another. My phrasing, to
wit "people have read it, they don't like it", was referring
implicityly, if not explicitly, to those list members who have read
it and don't like it. And only to that group. My apologies if I
gave the impression I was trying to speak for you.

> To emphasize, a vocal portion (minority or majority) does not >
speak for everyone. Read the book, play a session or two if >
possible, and draw your own conclusions. If the topic comes up > for
discussion, feel free to list the reasons that you do or do > not
like it (as many have done intelligently on both sides). > But
remember that this is an issue of opinion and not fact. > Simply
because the reasons you don't like it are perfectly clear > to you,
remember that not everyone, perhaps not even a
> majority, share your opinions.

Are you really all that sure of what the majority of the list thinks,
one way or another? By my math, the ~majority~ of the list has not
weighed into any of the pro/con discussions regarding 4th Ed at all.
It is enough for me that I speak for me, and yes it is only an
opinion.

So is any stance which holds an opposing view. Something I fear is
overlooked. Just as being the most vocal does not lend an opinion
extra credence, nor does being a member of a perceived majority make
one right. Specifically, I was talking about the fact that going
clear back to the first announcements of a 4th Edition, ANY criticism
was ultimately ignored/silenced with the phrase "wait until you've
read it, then form your opinion".

I read it. Just as the person who was criticising 4th Edition
earlier in the thread had clearly done. My issue is that a pro-4th
Ed voice reinvented, as a silencer to criticism, the same dismissive
tone. Only now, because opponents of 4th Edition have taken
proponents of the edition at their word and actually armed themselves
with first-hand knowledge of the book and targeted their criticisms
at actual examples, the wording of the dismissal must be changed. To
wit: "wait until you have PLAYED the new edition, THEN form your
opinion".

So I will speak for me, and not for all opponents of the new edition
who have --like me-- read it and STILL not liked it. That way I can
avoid giving any of you who ~do~ like the edition the erroneous
impression that I somehow thought I was speaking for you.

I don't need to PLAY SR4 to know that I do not like SR4. I knew
before I ever READ it that I would have problems with it. With every
single FAQ, my first reaction was proven to be accurate... FOR ME. I
liked the idea less with each new piece of info about the game. I
said as much then, and I am still saying it. I reacted to each FAQ
by attacking the info provided in it. And was told not to judge the
game by the FAQ. Was told to wait for the actual game. But now, I'm
told that waiting for the game is STILL not enough for my OPINION to
be worth reading.

It is not me who fails to understand that my dislike of SR4 is only
an opinion. It is, rather, Mr. Sanger who apparently fails to
understand that liking SR4 is also just an opinion. And one opinion
is no more or less valid than any other. So none of us who say,
"Ugh, I don't like it" should be placed under mandate to invest any
more money or time in it before we are allowed to state the opinion
we've already arrived at.

I believe my "bite me, fanboy" comment was directed at said dismissal
of someone's opinon. It was my comment. I fully appreciate that my
comment is not universally held or widely endorsed among all the
other people who post here. I could be a minority of one. As Gurth
pointed out, that is not going to sway me from my opinion.

======Korishinzo
--E.G.
Proponent: Hey how about some dog poop!
Opponent: I won't like it!
Proponent: Don't knock it till you've seen it.
Opponent: Nah, pretty sure I won't like it.
Proponent: Come one, don't knock it till you sniffed it.
Opponent: *sniff* Phew! Definately don't like it!
Proponent: Dammit, till you've tasted it, you just don't know.
Opponent: Bite me, fanboy.





> Just my 2¢
>
> Tim
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 18
From: arclight@*********.de (Arclight)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:15:45 +0100
At 21:06 12.12.2005, Ice Heart wrote:

<snip>

>I don't need to PLAY SR4 to know that I do not like SR4. I knew
>before I ever READ it that I would have problems with it. With every
>single FAQ, my first reaction was proven to be accurate... FOR ME. I
>liked the idea less with each new piece of info about the game. I
>said as much then, and I am still saying it. I reacted to each FAQ
>by attacking the info provided in it. And was told not to judge the
>game by the FAQ. Was told to wait for the actual game. But now, I'm
>told that waiting for the game is STILL not enough for my OPINION to
>be worth reading.
>
>It is not me who fails to understand that my dislike of SR4 is only
>an opinion. It is, rather, Mr. Sanger who apparently fails to
>understand that liking SR4 is also just an opinion. And one opinion
>is no more or less valid than any other. So none of us who say,
>"Ugh, I don't like it" should be placed under mandate to invest any
>more money or time in it before we are allowed to state the opinion
>we've already arrived at.

x2


--
Arclight
Quitters never win, winners never quit, but those who never quit and never
win are idiots
Message no. 19
From: rencheple@*******.net (Tim Martin)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:10:20 -0500
Ice Heart wrote:
> Ummm, likewise no offense, but you seem to have completely missed the
> point of my post.
Point taken, no offense taken.

If the mechanics were your sticking point, then I would say that then you should play it
before you judge it. Frankly, it's a bit like cooking. You couldn't get me to eat all
the ingredients of a pumpkin roll separately (ok, the cream cheese and powdered sugar I
could force myself to eat...), but when the ingredients are combined and presented
properly, they make one of the best deserts I've ever tasted. Mechanics have to be
considered in their totality and in context before they can be properly evaluated.

If it was the concept and the severity of the changes that sticks in your craw, then
reading it is clearly enough. Were you a player in my group, I would encourage you to try
it regardless, if for no other reason that SR3 is now officially a dead end,
publication-wise. It's really all about the fellowship, the story and the characters -
I'd hate to loose a player just because of a version change.

> I knew
> before I ever READ it that I would have problems with it. With every
> single FAQ, my first reaction was proven to be accurate... FOR ME.
Aren't you worried about self-fulfilling prophecy here? :-)
> I believe my "bite me, fanboy" comment was directed at said dismissal
> of someone's opinon.
As an IT Manager in a prominently Microsoft environment, I tend to find
and like things about Microsoft products. I know there is plenty of
stuff to not like, and that there is plenty of stuff to like about
alternative OSs. It is not uncommon for someone to whip out the "fanboy"
insult every time I try to state an opinion in support of Microsoft. It
doesn't matter that I've been in my field for 16 years or that I
occasional encourage people to buy Apple. "Fanboy" personally bugs me -
it is an insulting term, accusing the target of being unable to think
and form coherent opinions for themselves. I would simply encourage you
to not use it lightly. (Of course, there are times when it applies - I
honestly don't know if this is one of them or not.)
> Proponent: Hey how about some dog poop!
This seems unfairly harsh (you are welcome to your opinion, but equating
someone's hard work to dog poop is mean). Perhaps if you put in
"Tabasco Sauce", it would be more fair and accurate.

Be well

Tim
Message no. 20
From: swiftone@********.org (Brett Sanger)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:00:04 -0500
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 06:35:47AM -0800, Ice Heart wrote:
> For the record, and because your post feels a bit snippy to me...

Fair enough. I'll admit to be a bit snippy about sweeping definitive
statements made when the poster hadn't actually tried. Fortunately for
the peace, the Original Poster tooky my comments in stride and without
returning my snippyness. To him I offer my apologies.

> matter what the reason for the protest was, those posters were told:
>
> "First READ the new edition, THEN make your opinion."

Sound advice!

> Now the book is out. People have read it. They still don't like it.o
> So now, before their criticism is valid, they must PLAY the new
> edition. Just READING it is suddenly not enough to justify a
> negative opinion.

That depends on the opinion you are trying to justify. For example, PLAYING
demonstrated to me that the mechanics make surprisingly little difference in
the SR4. Reading is indeed "not enough to justify" an opinion to the contrary.

If you want to express concers, sure. If you have missing features you like,
go ahead and talk about them. If you wish the differences between hermetics
and shamanics were more clear, that's all supported by the text.

> Tell me... when critics of 4th Ed. have played it and STILL don't
> like it... will they then be told "oh, you have only PLAYED it...
> first LIVE the new edition, THEN make your opinion".

Well that depends. If they are saying that they personally, don't like it,
they've got their own opinion. If they say have been saying they don't like it
since before it was written, well, their opinion is worth exactly zero to me.
And if they speak as if these conclusions are absolute truths, I may just have
to get a killfile.

> If I were at all in a mood to be snippy... or if I'd had anything
> besides caffiene to drink today... a phrase akin to "bite me,
> fanboy!" would probably sneak into my post somewhere.

Um....despite being an SR fan, I've been more than willing to bash FASA/FanPro
about products in the past. (for real fun, see how many of the 10 suggestions
below were followed, and how many weren't.)

http://tss.dumpshock.com/14/art14-f.html

> If our criticisms of the edition are never going to be valid in the
> minds of its proponents, then we could have stuck with the comments
> we made last March. Or, to put it another way... if our criticisms
> are always going to be dismissed out of hand, that gives us
> permission to similarly dismiss --out of hand-- anything said in
> favor of the new edition.

While I was off-list, I find it frightening that you are claiming you had
actual criticism back in March. To put it another way, if you are always
going to dismiss the new edition out of hand (and not having it certainly
qualifies as out of hand), then that gives "us" (SR Cabal?) permission to
similarily dismiss anything you say.

Criticisms? I love criticisms, they create improvement. SR4 needs better
flavor for magic, it needs more and believable explanation for what is and
isn't wireless, it needs some controls on Mental Manipulation spells, it needs
a rules FAQ. But it has a lot as well: It has consistant mechanics, it has
better balance, it has hacking that makes marginally more sense, it has
characters that can succeed at simple tasks with only a few points in the
skill. SR4 also has some things that haven't changed: A run is still a run,
Johnsons still screw you over, and fixers still don't tell you everything. The
rich are still rich and everyone else is screwed. The world can be greitty,
and elves with chrome can be cool while orcs with guns can still shoot them
dead.

And never, ever deal with a dragon.

So, yeah, I imagine you've heard a few complaints. But don't mix complaints
about people trashing it with utter contempt without giving it a fair shake
with those that are honestly pointing out problems that can be fixed.

--
SwiftOne / Brett Sanger
swiftone@********.org
Message no. 21
From: swiftone@********.org (Brett Sanger)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:01:57 -0500
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 07:29:44PM +0100, Gurth wrote:
> That's not entirely true -- SR1 -> SRII is pretty easy, and SRII -> SR3
> is as well (trust me, like many here, I did both :) SR3 -> SR4 is
> actually a much bigger step, but because the SR4 rules are much simpler
> it's not nowhere near as drastic as it could have been.

In a lot of ways that's nicer. Just last year I was STILL finding rules
that we were runing the SR 1 or 2 way because we hadn't noticed the
change in SR 3. SR 4 gives you a chance to reexamine all of those.

--
SwiftOne / Brett Sanger
swiftone@********.org
Message no. 22
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:17:06 -0800 (PST)
> If the mechanics were your sticking point, then I would say that
> then you should play it before you judge it. Frankly, it's a >
bit like cooking.

Speaking as a long time cooking geek, your metaphor hits closer to
home than you might realize. Now imagine this scenario for a moment.
You are paging through a new cookbook a friend or family member got
you for the holidays and you come across this little gem:

New pumpkin rolls -- serves 6

(Question 1 of course would be why the heck they are changing your
pumpkin rolls)

Using new Betty Crocker Dehydrated Pumpkin Powder...

(gak, why? well, some people find that just adding water is easer
than opening a can... or *gasp* gutting a real pumpkin)

And powdered sweet 'n' low...

(erk get the f*** out! no, it's much healthier)

Set your microwave to...

At some point, you start wondering why anyone felt the need to
reinvent pumpkin rolls. You like them. Some people find them harder
to make than others, but that is no reason to publish this
abomination. I mean, what if -shudder to think- you visit a friend
who, knowing you like pumpkin rolls, decides to offer you one of said
confections they just made? Gag, choke, homocidal impulses. About
how I know I am going to feel if I get the chance to sit in a
Shadowrun game down the road and someone whips out this microwavable,
diet, insta-processed crap muffin in place of my favorite confection.
What is wrong with just adding frosting as a variation?

> > With every single FAQ, my first reaction was proven to be >
> accurate... FOR ME.

> Aren't you worried about self-fulfilling prophecy here? :-)

Frankly, no. Feeling like I was justified in a previous judgement of
something is not all that burdensome to me. :)

> > I believe my "bite me, fanboy" comment was directed at said
> > dismissal of someone's opinon.

> occasional encourage people to buy Apple. "Fanboy" personally >
bugs me - it is an insulting term, accusing the target of being >
unable to think and form coherent opinions for themselves. I >
would simply encourage you to not use it lightly. (Of course, >
there are times when it applies - I honestly don't know if this > is
one of them or not.)

Actually, I consider fanboy (or fangirl) to be quite a harsh
appelation, and I said it with the full knowledge that it was an
insult. I was rather affronted by the suggestion that we who dislike
SR4 will find our opinions marginalized, trivialized and outright
discounted until such time as our opinions have changed to match the
prevailing accepted dogma. My use of a very insulting label was a
direct reaction to my feeling offended. If you want to tell me I am
wrong about my assessment of SR4, try very very hard to come up with
something better than "if you actually had a brain, you'd see it my
way"... which is what the dismissive statement "oh you've only read
it, try actually playing it and then talk to me" amounts to.

> > Proponent: Hey how about some dog poop!

> This seems unfairly harsh (you are welcome to your opinion, but
> equating someone's hard work to dog poop is mean). Perhaps if >
you put in "Tabasco Sauce", it would be more fair and accurate.

Perhaps. Certainly it is unfair to the artists who created the new
edition. I have not noticed that anything I said on this list
produced much of a ripple at FanPro or WizKids, so I am certian they
will ignore that comment along with all my more rational oppositions
to SR4. :) Meanwhile, I get to deal with the fact that sticking by
Shadowrun through three editions did not buy me an ounce of inlfuence
in whether the next cookbook added frosting, or went back and changed
all the ingredients. From the selfish view of a loyal fan and long
time consumer... that seems unfairly harsh some days.

======Korishinzo
--I should just view it as a major favor... think how much money I
save by parting ways with the game product :>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 23
From: swiftone@********.org (Brett Sanger)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:18:49 -0500
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 12:06:41PM -0800, Ice Heart wrote:
> tone. Only now, because opponents of 4th Edition have taken
> proponents of the edition at their word and actually armed themselves
> with first-hand knowledge of the book and targeted their criticisms
> at actual examples, the wording of the dismissal must be changed. To
> wit: "wait until you have PLAYED the new edition, THEN form your
> opinion".
...
> I don't need to PLAY SR4 to know that I do not like SR4. I knew
> before I ever READ it that I would have problems with it.
...
> It is not me who fails to understand that my dislike of SR4 is only
> an opinion. It is, rather, Mr. Sanger who apparently fails to
> understand that liking SR4 is also just an opinion. And one opinion
> is no more or less valid than any other.

I do not wish to criticize Mr. Harrison, who (as I noted) took my tone well and
later clarified his comments, however, I am quoting him here to give the
context of my comments:

Scott Harrison said:
---
Basically it boils down to SR4 is not a continuation of SR
1-3, but rather a new game that only resembles Shadowrun in the hopes
that people who play Shadowrun will put money down for it so it is
not a bust a start. It appears the game is targeted toward new
players. It has simplified things, made things more uniform, etc.
Some is good. Some is bad. For those that really enjoy the setting
of previous SR versions, the universe for SR4 has changed so much
that you cannot play the old way in the new world.
---

There are several sweeping statements here, including that the timeline is
replaced, the motivations behind the development (which I had nothing to do
with, darn it all), and that it can't be played "the old way".

Nothing in that message that shows that those are just opinions, nor any
support for any of the statements. Having read more that a few pots by certain
people *cough* attacking SR4 with wide dismissals, without support, and at
every opportunity, I have to say that there are INDEED some opinions that are
more valid than others. That's what "support" means. You can disagree with me
and have a valid opinion. You can also disagree with me and have a less valid
opinion.

To save time, this is where someone responds with a dictionary definition,
someone else responds with a similar, but crucially different defintion, a
sub-thread spawns arguing the merits of Merriam-Wester vs Oxford Englsih,
someone calls someone else a "grammar nazi", someone else declares Godwin's
law, a sub-thread concerning the in/offensive-ness of "nazi" to europeans vs
citizens of the U.S., and another over which of the Corollaries to Godwin's
apply. 6 new threads about needing to retitle the thread will appear in the
various subthreads (only 2 of which are themselves retitled), but they are
rapidly overwhelmed by the discussion, rendering the new titles equally bad.
Somewhere in there, one or both of us get tired of trying to follow the
timeline of the thread and drop it, convinced that anyone available to be
swayed was won over by our words.

I'm willing to let you respond (not trying to claim last word!) and thne let
the matter drop until the next thread that gets taken over by the "SR4 Debate"
if you are :)

--
SwiftOne / Brett Sanger
swiftone@********.org
Message no. 24
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:35:27 -0500
On Dec 12, 2005, at 17:18, Brett Sanger wrote:

> I do not wish to criticize Mr. Harrison, who (as I noted) took my
> tone well and
> later clarified his comments, however, I am quoting him here to
> give the
> context of my comments:
>
> Scott Harrison said:
> ---
> Basically it boils down to SR4 is not a continuation of SR
> 1-3, but rather a new game that only resembles Shadowrun in the hopes
> that people who play Shadowrun will put money down for it so it is
> not a bust a start. It appears the game is targeted toward new
> players. It has simplified things, made things more uniform, etc.
> Some is good. Some is bad. For those that really enjoy the setting
> of previous SR versions, the universe for SR4 has changed so much
> that you cannot play the old way in the new world.
> ---
>
> There are several sweeping statements here, including that the
> timeline is
> replaced, the motivations behind the development (which I had
> nothing to do
> with, darn it all), and that it can't be played "the old way".
>
> Nothing in that message that shows that those are just opinions,
> nor any
> support for any of the statements. Having read more that a few
> pots by certain
> people *cough* attacking SR4 with wide dismissals, without support,
> and at
> every opportunity, I have to say that there are INDEED some
> opinions that are
> more valid than others. That's what "support" means. You can
> disagree with me
> and have a valid opinion. You can also disagree with me and have a
> less valid
> opinion.
>

Cool. I get quoted. My statements are very general I think. I
would like to take each in turn:

I thought the opening statement was a good thesis summary. Of
course the last half of the sentence was an opinion of mine which has
no basis in reality except in how I see it. The setting resembles
the world of Shadowrun but I think it differs enough from what I have
experienced Shadowrun to be that it really could be called by another
name and still done its job. However, by calling it by another name
the marketers lose some brand-name recognition.

My statement about targeting new players seems to be accurate
because the mechanics are simplified, there is enough of a separation
from the previous games that you need to experience with the previous
ones, etc. Note that simplified mechanics are usually used to woo
new gamers in my experience. If you do not agree with that
assumption, ok.

The next statement I made should probably be accepted because it is
true. It was used to support the previous one.

The some is good and some is bad really cannot be disputed because
it is true. The fun thing is that each person will probably define
what is good and bad differently.

And the last statement seems fine to me as well, because things have
changed radically. Because of rule changes, the universe has
changed. As an illustrative point look at the wireless world in SR4,
compared to that of SR3. Hackers versus deckers and riggers. Note
that SR4 changes lots of things, but SR3 changed things too -- like
no longer being able to ground spells. The physics change in the
canon rules, and the world changes in response. I am just saying
that the SR4 changes are really radical. I have attempted to look at
our SR3 campaign and map it into SR4 and it does not go. When we
ported our characters from SR2 to SR3 there were issues. For
example, remember Firearms? Nice skill to have at 8. What on earth
happened to the character who could pick up any old gun and be nasty
with it? SR3 changed that radically. Funny thing that SR4 has gone
differently there. :-)

--
·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑
·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯 Scott
Harrison
Message no. 25
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:46:39 -0800 (PST)
> So, yeah, I imagine you've heard a few complaints. But don't mix
> complaints about people trashing it with utter contempt without >
giving it a fair shake with those that are honestly pointing out >
problems that can be fixed.

I have probably been the most vociferous critic of SR4 on this list,
so yes, it stands to reason that I have heard a few complaints... I
typed more of them than I imagine most anyone here ever wanted to
read in toto, let alone from one poster. By now, if my name appears
next to a subject line refencing SR4, I'd be willing to bet the email
gets summarily deleted.

Sometimes I get the impression, I've wasted a lot of valuable words.
(Presuming you can wear out a vocabulary... :> ) Because, judging
from the replies I get, the arguments come down to apples and
oranges. I talk about WHY I am bothered that a new edition exists,
or that the SR game mechanics were scrapped and reinvented rather
than adjusted and tweaked, or that fundamental game concepts like
decking were completely transmuted... and I get back replies that
range from trite to patronizing to dismissive.
"If I'd just read it..."
"If I'd just try it..."
"Don't knock what you don't understand..."
Such replies make me almost certain my posts have not been read, or
at least if they have, the people who actually read them don't bother
to reply.

To sum up:
SR4 is nearly a complete departure from Shadowrun 1-3 except at a
superficial, cosmetic level. Even some of the cosmetics have
undergone dramatic and sweeping changes. Everything from core
mechanics to in-game, in-character terminology has been changed.
Methodology that existed and worked for characters of the shadowrun
universe vanished and was replaced in FIVE YEARS. Suddenly, not just
hip young runners, but all runners, find hackers to do the work of
deckers and riggers. Suddenly, hermetic mages the world over
realized that they had been wrong since 2011, and elementals and
nature spirits are one and the same... shaped not by fundamental,
metaphysical laws, but by the conjurors paradigm. And shamans
everywhere said... "umm, *inhale* yea dude. S'cool." Me,
personally, I have a very hard time with this.
I keep seeing posts about how SR4 needs this or that tweak to fix
some, I am sorry, but gigantic oversights that were inevitable when
scrapping the wheel to invent a new smooth, round object for rolling
things. Excuse me, but weren't we refining a Shadowrun game, fixing
a few bugs here and there? Hadn't SR3 been hailed as being about 90%
of the way there? Just a few more tweaks.
SR4 represents to me a sudden marketing decision to abandon a product
for the sake of a new one with the same name... and virtually nothing
else. Profit margins. The target demographic changed. The
attention span of todays RPG gamer is not what it was 5, 10 or 20
years ago. We don't want an improvement on SR3. Because today's
consumers don't want a rehashing of their dad's/aunt's/older
sibling's/etc game. They want a console game they can play when the
power is off. SR4 is not Shadowrun... per se... it is a new game
which has usurped a pre-existing title and borrowed some of the more
generic setting concepts. I got that from the first FAQ. Everything
since has just been confirmation, including one very expensive pdf I
will never use.

======Korishinzo
--The preceding has been a thesis (I know it, you know it, we all
know it - it's just an opinion):

the·sis
n. pl. the·ses (-sz)
1. A proposition that is maintained by argument.
2. A dissertation advancing an original point of view as a
result of research, especially as a requirement for an
academic degree.
3. A hypothetical proposition, especially one put forth without
proof.
4. The first stage of the Hegelian dialectic process.

[Latin, from Greek, from tithenai, to put; see dh- in Indo-European
Roots. Senses 5 and 6, Middle English from Late Latin, lowering of
the voice, from Greek, downbeat, from tithenai.]

and also:

thesis

n 1: an unproved statement put forward as a premise in an argument 2:
a treatise advancing a new point of view resulting from research;
usually a requirement for an advanced academic degree [syn: dissertation]

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 26
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:10:26 -0700
On 12/12/05, Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com> wrote:
>
> --The preceding has been a thesis (I know it, you know it, we all
> know it - it's just an opinion):

As long as nobody posts a manifesto we'll all be fine ;)

--
-Graht
Message no. 27
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:33:33 +0100
On 12 Dec 2005, at 23:17, Ice Heart wrote:

> If you want to tell me I am
> wrong about my assessment of SR4, try very very hard to come up with
> something better than "if you actually had a brain, you'd see it my
> way"... which is what the dismissive statement "oh you've only read
> it, try actually playing it and then talk to me" amounts to.

For what it's worth, I've played Shadowrun 4 and don't like it. My
group has been playing SR4 for about 6 months (that is, since we
received the first playtest drafts), and since every session had us
going into MST3K mode at least once, we finally gave up on it a few
weeks ago.

As a software engineer, I like simplicity, flexibility and elegance.
So do the other players in my group. When I first read the Shadowrun
3 rules, they felt like they had all these qualities -- I know, I
know, but the only other RPG I'd played back then was AD&D. Now,
more than 5 years later (my, I've been reading this list for that
long?), I look back on it and see it as the clunky, heavyweight
system it is (especially with the rigging rules bolted on) -- yet it
remains one of the most flexible systems I've been played.

It can be adapted to fit pretty much any situation, from street-level
gunfights to naval warfare, and has relatively few blatant holes in
its base mechanics (there are, however, a few horribly broken pieces
of gear -- chipjack expert driver, artwinkulation and mnemonic
enhancer come to mind). Also, I like that its probability curve is
not flat, which means it remains realistic enough as it scales up or
down.

Unlike Kori, I didn't think a new edition was unnecessary. When
Shadowrun 4 was announced, it actually made me happy (as well as
thinking it was a horribly short timeframe, especially given the
number of books Fanpro was supposed to release before that). I
expected a system that would retain SR3's flexibility in a simpler,
more elegant package. I mean, it seemed like the correct thing to
do: the same thing, only better. Keep what works, fix what doesn't.
In a way, I expected the RPG equivalent of Windows 2000, where SR3 is
Win'98. I had good hopes of SR4 being an instance of Best Thing
Ever, as I could see many ways in which the mechanics could be
improved, refactored and optimized. Then we received the first
playtest drafts... And our expectations went down.

Setting aside my main gripe (Matrix 2.0 was created backwards by
people who only know two things about computers, one of which just
left town, and doesn't make sense at all) which has already been
debated at length here... Shadowrun 4 possesses none of the
qualities I'm looking for in an RPG system. It's not simple --
simpler than SR3, true (yay, and I'm taller than most midgets), but
overcomplicated in many places. It's lost most of SR3's flexibility,
and is as elegant as a rules-heavy game that was developed from
scratch, tested and released in less than 6 months can be -- not at all.

It's got a flat probability curve, meaning it scales like shit (see
my earlier rants about this) and requires a special exception
mechanic (one that I don't like at all, might I add) to prevent
automatic failures from happening too often. Difficulty is hard to
modulate as there's only one variable where there were two (not to
mention the players don't have any influence on it anymore, with
tactical pools gone)... I could go on and on (and in fact already
have, in earlier posts). Note that I haven't mentioned balance
issues yet, I'll spare them this time (and $deity knows there's a lot
of them -- there's a reason we went into MST3K mode every session).

In the end, it comes down to Shadowrun 4 looking like a half-arsed
job to me. Rushed out of the door for no good reason that I'm aware
of (well, it might be that Cyberpunk V3 is finally going to come out,
which might make the true origin of the "hey, let's crash everything
again because our VR paradigm sucks!" thing a bit too obvious), it
feels like it has all the flaws of a lightweight system while still
remaining rules-heavy enough to drag us down and remind us it's not
one. And that, in my book, is a Bad Thing.

-- Wild_Cat
PS: For the record, the closest I've seen to my idea of a "perfect"
gaming system is Tri-Stat dX (which we're now using to great effect
in the Shadowrun setting).





___________________________________________________________________________
Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger
Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
Message no. 28
From: allura@***********.org (Joanna G. Hurley)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:56:24 -0500
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com
> [mailto:shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com] On Behalf Of Ice Heart
>
> Are you really all that sure of what the majority of the list thinks,
> one way or another? By my math, the ~majority~ of the list has not
> weighed into any of the pro/con discussions regarding 4th Ed at all.

Well, since I haven't weighed in yet (not that I do much beyond lurk anyway)
...I like it. For me, just updating the tech would have been enough. Finally
having wireless tech is great, considering what I know is being used today.
Beyond that, I find the rules are more streamlined and that appeals to me. I
find that lately I prefer less rules and more story. If I'm spending 10-15
minutes looking up a rule, it's too long. There's a lot to take in, and I
still haven't read all of SR4 yet (too many things going on), but I
definitely want to play it. We may bring in the new rules even without our
in-game timeline (we're still in the early 60s).

As for the storyline, it's coincided nicely with a period where I feel it's
time to retire my uber-character and move on to something new. The upheavals
in System Failure will definitely give her a reason.

Joanna G. Hurley
Freelance Editor
Message no. 29
From: anders@**********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:04:06 -0800
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:53:01 -0500
Scott Harrison <scott@**********.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 12, 2005, at 13:18, Tim Martin wrote:
>
> [snip]
> However, that is not my big complaint. Mine is the
> fact that the game differs from previous SR radically. The concept of
> some of the characters we run in our SR3 campaign will not work. We have
> characters that have been played for years with 300 karma. Some of the
> players have concentrated on making skills at levels 8 to 10. Our
> campaigns take on an epic scope. Think of an MC raid in WoW. Porting
> these characters to SR4 will not work. Basically, these characters cannot
> continue to progress in the canon SR universe. With players that have
> developed characters over so many years, such that we have a HUGE history,
> we do not lightly give up playing our campaign. Therefore, as I have
> said before I will most likely need to do another group to play SR4.
>
Yes, I have decided to make my players all start with 'beginning' SR4 chrs,
certainly before 'converting' their old high powered ones. Likely I'll simply
tell them how the old campaign ended, and let them decide what their old
runners are doing in retirement.

And, as I haven't had an opportunity to roll dice in SR4, i'm only
provisionally enthusiastic. There are still a lot of grey areas that I won't
figure out until I play or run a game, of course.
--Anders
Message no. 30
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:05:28 +0100
According to Brett Sanger, on 12-12-05 23:01 the word on the street was...

> In a lot of ways that's nicer. Just last year I was STILL finding rules
> that we were runing the SR 1 or 2 way because we hadn't noticed the
> change in SR 3.

Same here, really. Many were conscious decisions to stick to the old
rules (like maintaining that you can't move through a living thing on
the astral plane) but others were just like you say: not noticing that
it was changed. I even occasionally said "Roll Firearms" until at least
2003 ...

> SR 4 gives you a chance to reexamine all of those.

But it also means you again have to read very carefully in order to
actually spot the differences. I have the added problem that I did some
playtesting, in which we sometimes had to convert on the fly some SR3
rules for situations that weren't covered by the playtest rules yet, and
if the actual SR4 rules differ chances are we remember our own playtest
version instead :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Please do not read the lyrics whilst listening to the recordings.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 31
From: pasquires@*****.com (Paul Squires)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:28:37 +0000
I agree almost wholeheartedly with Kori :)

I've not played SR since first edition, many years ago, but bought
almost all SR3 things, because I liked it and would have (did)
consider trying to find a group of people to play.

>From what I've seen of SR4 I don't like it. I refuse to purchase
anything to do with it since that is the ONLY way I can protest about
a product in an open market. The moment I buy SR4 I become a number
that contributes to the "success" of it. Whatever I do from that
moment becomes part of the marketing fluff - if I buy the core book
and hate it, thus never buying anything again - then that's obviously
a satisfied customer who's so impressed with the core rules that he
didn't see the need to buy anything else :rolleyes:

Anyone thought of a money-back guarantee?

The whole point of people "wasting electons" here is that they (us?)
want the product to be better and succesful. Unfortunately, dumbing it
down and making wholesale changes (that were initially denied) does
not do that for us. I don't want to destroy SR - I want it to be
strong, healthy and successful, however I don't want to lose the
essence of the game in the process.

Maybe there needs to be 2 different versions of the product. "SR
classic" and "SR for people who struggle with game mechanics"?

--
Paul Squires
pasquires@*****.com | OpenPGP Key ID: 0x423003E0
MSN: pa_squires@*******.com | ICQ: 318471677
Message no. 32
From: rencheple@*******.net (Tim Martin)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:33:44 -0500
Ice Heart wrote:
> vociferous
Man, I love that word - just have an evil undertone to it, like it
should be the last name in an ancient, evil vampire....
Message no. 33
From: arclight@*********.de (Arclight)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:17:15 +0100
At 11:28 13.12.2005, Paul Squires wrote:

<snip>

>Maybe there needs to be 2 different versions of the product. "SR
>classic" and "SR for people who struggle with game mechanics"?

"Classic SR" and "SR: Wireless Ages" *bg*


--
Arclight

Quitters never win, winners never quit,
but those who never quit and never win are idiots
Message no. 34
From: gwarren@*******.rr.com (Griff M. Warren II)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:39:42 -0500
Paul Squires wrote:

>
>Maybe there needs to be 2 different versions of the product. "SR
>classic" and "SR for people who struggle with game mechanics"?
>
>

I never had any problems with The 1st ed Shadowrun rules(or the 2nd or
3rd, for that matter), but I also played Middle Earth using Rolemaster
rules for years so anything would seem streamlined after that. ;-)

Griff Warren
Message no. 35
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: 4th Ed House rules?
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:42:46 +0100
According to Griff M. Warren II, on 13-12-05 19:39 the word on the
street was...

> I never had any problems with The 1st ed Shadowrun rules(or the 2nd or
> 3rd, for that matter), but I also played Middle Earth using Rolemaster
> rules for years so anything would seem streamlined after that. ;-)

Much the same here. SR1 was the second RPG I ever played, after being in
an AD&D 2nd edition campaign for about six months. The SR rules were a
major improvement :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Please do not read the lyrics whilst listening to the recordings.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about 4th Ed House rules?, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!