Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:23:06 +0000
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopicv59

Given that we're the 15th of March, I take it the information is
genuine. Okay, now *that* should spark some discussion on this list,
shouldn't it?

Me? I hope the rules will be completely unified, finally removing that
"I'm playing 4 different games duct taped together" feeling, as well as
some unnecessary rule complexity. And I hope the vehicle rules will
make sense.

Kudos keeping it a secret until now (complete with SR4 d20 hoaxes on
the forums!), Adam et al.

Flame away.

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 2
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:41:56 -0800
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:23:06 +0000, Max Noel <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr> wrote:
> http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopicv59
>
> Given that we're the 15th of March, I take it the information is
> genuine. Okay, now *that* should spark some discussion on this list,
> shouldn't it?
>
> Me? I hope the rules will be completely unified, finally removing that
> "I'm playing 4 different games duct taped together" feeling, as well as
> some unnecessary rule complexity. And I hope the vehicle rules will
> make sense.
>
> Kudos keeping it a secret until now (complete with SR4 d20 hoaxes on
> the forums!), Adam et al.
>
> Flame away.

I think that this will serve SR greatly. It needs a make-over to help
increase popularity. A lot people will be hanging on the promise to
streamline and reduce rules.

2070 holy crap!
Message no. 3
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:46:33 +0100
---------------------- multipart/signed attachment

On Mar 15, 2005, at 19:41, Failhelm wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:23:06 +0000, Max Noel <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr>
> wrote:
>> http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=7659
>>
>> Given that we're the 15th of March, I take it the information
>> is
>> genuine. Okay, now *that* should spark some discussion on this list,
>> shouldn't it?
>>
>> Me? I hope the rules will be completely unified, finally
>> removing that
>> "I'm playing 4 different games duct taped together" feeling, as well
>> as
>> some unnecessary rule complexity. And I hope the vehicle rules will
>> make sense.
>>
>> Kudos keeping it a secret until now (complete with SR4 d20
>> hoaxes on
>> the forums!), Adam et al.
>>
>> Flame away.
>
> I think that this will serve SR greatly. It needs a make-over to help
> increase popularity. A lot people will be hanging on the promise to
> streamline and reduce rules.
>
> 2070 holy crap!
>
>
Now this means another software rewrite...

--
·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑
·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯 Scott
Harrison PGP Key ID: 0x0f0b5b86

---------------------- multipart/signed attachment--
Message no. 4
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:07:21 +0000
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:41:56AM -0800, Failhelm wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:23:06 +0000, Max Noel <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr> wrote:
> > http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopicv59
> >
> > Given that we're the 15th of March, I take it the information is
> > genuine. Okay, now *that* should spark some discussion on this list,
> > shouldn't it?
> >
> > Me? I hope the rules will be completely unified, finally removing that
> > "I'm playing 4 different games duct taped together" feeling, as well
as
> > some unnecessary rule complexity. And I hope the vehicle rules will
> > make sense.
> >
> > Kudos keeping it a secret until now (complete with SR4 d20 hoaxes on
> > the forums!), Adam et al.
> >
> > Flame away.
>
> I think that this will serve SR greatly. It needs a make-over to help
> increase popularity. A lot people will be hanging on the promise to
> streamline and reduce rules.
>
> 2070 holy crap!

Well, I for one will wait to read the rules before I decide that it will 'serve SR
greatly'. I'm always a little skeptical about rewrites. There certainly are some things
in SR that can be improved, but there are also some things it does pretty well.

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
http://davek.freeshell.org/
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 5
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:07:37 +0100
According to Max Noel, on 15-03-2005 19:23 the word on the street was...

> Given that we're the 15th of March, I take it the information is
> genuine.

It is. Unless Rob and Adam decided to do the April Fool's joke a bit
early this year :)

> Okay, now *that* should spark some discussion on this list,
> shouldn't it?

I hope so...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? 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. 6
From: arclight@*********.de (Arclight)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:11:11 +0100
At 20:07 15.03.2005, Gurth wrote:

>> Given that we're the 15th of March, I take it the information is genuine.
>
>It is. Unless Rob and Adam decided to do the April Fool's joke a bit early
>this year :)

There's a press statement on Fanpros Server - should be real stuff.

>>Okay, now *that* should spark some discussion on this list, shouldn't it?
>
>I hope so...

Biggest question: will there be BABYs? ;)


--
Arclight

Quitters never win, winners never quit,
but those who never quit and never win are idiots
Message no. 7
From: pentaj2@********.edu (John C. Penta)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:33:29 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: David Kettler <davek@***.lonestar.org>
Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:07 pm
Subject: Re: Shadowrun 4?

> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:41:56AM -0800, Failhelm wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:23:06 +0000, Max Noel
> <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr> wrote:
> > > http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopicv59
> > >
> > > Given that we're the 15th of March, I take it the
> information is
> > > genuine. Okay, now *that* should spark some discussion on this
> list,> > shouldn't it?
> > >
> > > Me? I hope the rules will be completely unified,
> finally removing that
> > > "I'm playing 4 different games duct taped together" feeling,
> as well as
> > > some unnecessary rule complexity. And I hope the vehicle rules
> will> > make sense.
> > >
> > > Kudos keeping it a secret until now (complete with SR4
> d20 hoaxes on
> > > the forums!), Adam et al.
> > >
> > > Flame away.
> >
> > I think that this will serve SR greatly. It needs a make-over to
> help> increase popularity. A lot people will be hanging on the
> promise to
> > streamline and reduce rules.
> >
> > 2070 holy crap!
>
> Well, I for one will wait to read the rules before I decide that
> it will 'serve SR greatly'. I'm always a little skeptical about
> rewrites. There certainly are some things in SR that can be
> improved, but there are also some things it does pretty well.

I dunno. Ruleswise, we've not really had the full set for a while.

Also, this feels creepily like the "20 year update" which introduced the Clans
to Battletech.

Which makes me shudder, because anything on that scale would Not Be Good.

John
Message no. 8
From: msde_shadowrn@*****.com (Mark S)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:39:16 -0800 (PST)
--- Max Noel <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr> wrote:
> http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopicv59

"The year is 2070 ­five years since the System Failure took down the
old Matrix, nine years since the passing of the comet unleashed wild
and unexplained magic in the world. The Sixth World has changed. Some
of the players are familiar, but there are new faces ­and new forces
­at work in the shadow"

five years since the whaaaa?

stupid obsolescence...

I hope this means that B&N and Borders starts carrying Shadowrun again,
preferably with new novels.

Mark




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Message no. 9
From: msde_shadowrn@*****.com (Mark S)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:41:27 -0800 (PST)
--- "John C. Penta" <pentaj2@********.edu> wrote:
> Also, this feels creepily like the "20 year update" which introduced
> the Clans to Battletech.
>
> Which makes me shudder, because anything on that scale would Not Be
> Good.

I thought the 20 year update was a very good thing for Battletech.
Long enough to add an absolute ton of plot, but not so long that you
lose all continuity in characters. And if you don't like it, you can
still go play a pre-clan campaign.

Mark




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Message no. 10
From: l-hansen@*****.tele.dk (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:51:31 +0100
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Harrison" <scott@**********.com>
To: "Shadowrun Discussion" <shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: Shadowrun 4?

Scott will you please turn off you digital signature.

Lars
Message no. 11
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:41:32 +0100
On Mar 15, 2005, at 20:51, Lars Wagner Hansen wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Harrison"
> <scott@**********.com>
> To: "Shadowrun Discussion" <shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Shadowrun 4?
>
> Scott will you please turn off you digital signature.
>
>
Sorry, I don't even think about those. Anyway, I thought someone said
they would be stripped from the list. This one should not have it
since I clicked it off. :-)

--
·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑
·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯 Scott
Harrison PGP Key ID: 0x0f0b5b86
Message no. 12
From: mc23@**********.com (MC23)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:51:43 -0500
> Shadowrun, Fourth Edition offers a completely new rules system that is
> simple, integrated and accessible. The state-of-the-art has also been
> advanced, introducing a new level of augmented reality, new gear, new
> magical discoveries, and more.
>
> This hardcover rulebook contains all the rules gamemasters and players
> need to create characters and ongoing adventures set in the popular
> Shadowrun universe. Note that the Shadowrun, Fourth Edition will
> replace the Shadowrun, Third Edition rules set. Source material from
> previous editions will still be compatible.

So they are promising "a completely new rules system" and yet they say
"Source material from previous editions will still be compatible". Have
your cake and eat it too. I'm not buying it. I dread the rapid timeline
advance more than anything else. This could be it for me.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power,
personal names more so and they were guarded very closely.
To protect themselves, they answered to another name,
because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 13
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:00:19 -0800
>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:51:43 -0500, MC23 <mc23@**********.com> wrote:
> > Shadowrun, Fourth Edition offers a completely new rules system that is
> > simple, integrated and accessible. The state-of-the-art has also been
> > advanced, introducing a new level of augmented reality, new gear, new
> > magical discoveries, and more.
> >
> > This hardcover rulebook contains all the rules gamemasters and players
> > need to create characters and ongoing adventures set in the popular
> > Shadowrun universe. Note that the Shadowrun, Fourth Edition will
> > replace the Shadowrun, Third Edition rules set. Source material from
> > previous editions will still be compatible.
>
> So they are promising "a completely new rules system" and yet they
say
> "Source material from previous editions will still be compatible". Have
> your cake and eat it too. I'm not buying it. I dread the rapid timeline
> advance more than anything else. This could be it for me.
>

Rules don't outdate source material. Dunky is still a dragon
regardless of what dice you toss.

Could be semantics, but I consider Source Material to be story/history
material and not rule sets.
Message no. 14
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:01:31 +0000
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:51:43 -0500, MC23 <mc23@**********.com> wrote:

> So they are promising "a completely new rules system" and yet they
say
> "Source material from previous editions will still be compatible". Have
> your cake and eat it too. I'm not buying it. I dread the rapid timeline
> advance more than anything else. This could be it for me.

Since I never cared much for the setting in the first place, this
actually got me curious in a good way.


--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
Message no. 15
From: arclight@*********.de (Arclight)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:34:13 +0100
At 21:51 15.03.2005, MC23 wrote:

>I dread the rapid timeline advance more than anything else. This could be
>it for me.

Oh yeah. Try to advance a character 5 years while the timeline goes on and
on and on...


--
Arclight

Quitters never win, winners never quit,
but those who never quit and never win are idiots
Message no. 16
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:37:47 -0700
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:41:32 +0100, Scott Harrison <scott@**********.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 15, 2005, at 20:51, Lars Wagner Hansen wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Harrison"
> > <scott@**********.com>
> > To: "Shadowrun Discussion" <shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: Shadowrun 4?
> >
> > Scott will you please turn off you digital signature.
> >
> >
> Sorry, I don't even think about those. Anyway, I thought someone said
> they would be stripped from the list. This one should not have it
> since I clicked it off. :-)
>
> --
>
·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑
·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯
Scott Harrison PGP Key ID: 0x0f0b5b86
>

Well... the signature isn't HTML. It's actually coming across as
text, so the listserv isn't stripping it. The problem is that your
mailer (and mine for that matter) is trying to interpret the strings
of "=C2=B7=F0=90=91=95=.. etc". Gmail
doesn't seem to mind it (shows
up as a series of little boxes in mine). I don't think I could get
the listserv to strip it if I tried. Believe it or not, his signature
falls well within the bounds of the ShadowRN Guidelines.

Scott, if you could turn off or modify your signature, that would be
great. But I'm not going to try to enforce this one (Adam or Mark on
the other hand might ;).

--
-Graht
Assistant to the Assistant Fearless Leader
Message no. 17
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:39:56 -0700
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:51:43 -0500, MC23 <mc23@**********.com> wrote:

> So they are promising "a completely new rules system" and yet they
say
> "Source material from previous editions will still be compatible". Have
> your cake and eat it too. I'm not buying it. I dread the rapid timeline
> advance more than anything else. This could be it for me.

Well, SR2 was compatable with SR1, and SR3 was compatable with both
SR1 and SR2. Have faith :)

I think the timeline advance is there so that they can reasonably make
a case for completely rewriting the Matrix rules and making them
compatable, and hopefully integrated, with the rest of Shadowrun.

--
-Graht
Message no. 18
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:45:57 +0000
On Mar 15, 2005, at 21:34, Arclight wrote:

> At 21:51 15.03.2005, MC23 wrote:
>
>> I dread the rapid timeline advance more than anything else. This
>> could be it for me.
>
> Oh yeah. Try to advance a character 5 years while the timeline goes on
> and on and on...

For a lot of characters, I guess that means retirement. Elves and
Dwarves may not care, but 5 years is more than a tenth of an Ork's (or
a Troll's) life.
Especially if your characters have already been running for ~5 years
(i.e. since SR3), it might just be an easier/better/more logical
solution to just go back to chargen -- and use your old PCs as fixers,
friends or random plot elements.

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 19
From: bandwidthoracle@*******.net (bandwidthoracle)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:00:15 -0700
Whoo, Where can I pre-order?

My only concern is that they've changed my precious matrix rules too
much (We loves our Matrix 3),
if it's going to be compatible does that mean the matrix will still be
generally the same?
Message no. 20
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:14:21 -0800
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:00:15 -0700, bandwidthoracle
<bandwidthoracle@*******.net> wrote:
> Whoo, Where can I pre-order?
>
> My only concern is that they've changed my precious matrix rules too
> much (We loves our Matrix 3),
> if it's going to be compatible does that mean the matrix will still be
> generally the same?

I'm just guessing, but I foresee some major rule changes for the Matrix.
Message no. 21
From: allura@***********.org (Allura)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:15:18 -0500
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com
> [mailto:shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com] On Behalf Of Mark S

>
> --- Max Noel <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr> wrote:
> > http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopicv59
>
> "The year is 2070 -five years since the System Failure took
> down the old Matrix, nine years since the passing of the
> comet unleashed wild and unexplained magic in the world. The
> Sixth World has changed. Some of the players are familiar,
> but there are new faces -and new forces -at work in the shadow"
>
> five years since the whaaaa?

This thread made me realize the significance of the Origins ad Adam posted a
while back: http://www.talkinabout.com/fanpro/origins_ad.jpg . So THAT"s
what "System Failure" is. Sounds interesting, but our game's still running
around in 2059! I'm not sure what we'll use and what we'll lose. I'm sure
we'll end up buying it though. :)

Joanna
Message no. 22
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:23:12 -0800
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:15:18 -0500, Allura <allura@***********.org> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com
> > [mailto:shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com] On Behalf Of Mark S
>
> >
> > --- Max Noel <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr> wrote:
> > > http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopicv59
> >
> > "The year is 2070 -five years since the System Failure took
> > down the old Matrix, nine years since the passing of the
> > comet unleashed wild and unexplained magic in the world. The
> > Sixth World has changed. Some of the players are familiar,
> > but there are new faces -and new forces -at work in the shadow"
> >
> > five years since the whaaaa?
>
> This thread made me realize the significance of the Origins ad Adam posted a
> while back: http://www.talkinabout.com/fanpro/origins_ad.jpg . So THAT"s
> what "System Failure" is. Sounds interesting, <snip>

boom, boom, talk about your major events. Such a thing would cascade
world wide, and change everything.
Message no. 23
From: james@****.uow.edu.au (James Niall Zealey)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:16:12 +1100
> Max Noel <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr>
>
>
> ...release info on shadowrun 4...
>

I just seriously hope that someone sat down, took a good long look at
how to structure a book and make a unified system, and then managed to
push all that through the other layers of production.

Things I'd like NOT to see in SR 4:
1. Different rules for resolving the same task in slightly different
situations. Melee attacks=ranged attacks=matrix attacks=magic
attacks=astral attacks=miji attacks=drone ranged attacks. Perception =
astral perception = sensor tests = bug sweeps. That kind of thing.

2. Rules (like, I dunno, armour stacking?) in the gear section. Either
that, or avoid putting rules for gear in the combat section. Choose one
and stick to it.

3. Most of the current rigger rules. As with 1, try fitting them into
normal combat.

4. Open tests. SR has (in some parts, like divination spells for
instance) this nice little system where more successes¾tter result,
and higher numbers=overcoming difficulty. Open tests just destroy that.

5. Pandering to people complaining that it's just as easy to roll a 6 as
a 7 in the current system. Really - does it make all that much difference?
Message no. 24
From: marc.renouf@******.com (Renouf, Marc A.)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:40:38 -0500
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com
> [mailto:shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com] On Behalf Of
> james@****.uow.edu.au
>
> I just seriously hope that someone sat down, took a good long
> look at how to structure a book and make a unified system,
> and then managed to push all that through the other layers of
> production.
>
> Things I'd like NOT to see in SR 4:

[SNIP]

Amen, brother.

Marc
Message no. 25
From: mc23@**********.com (MC23)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:48:09 -0500
So who got to playtest this one?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

"THAT'S NOT FAIR!"
"You say that so often. I wonder what your basis for comparison is."
-Sarah and Jareth, Labyrinth

I am MC23
Message no. 26
From: pentaj2@********.edu (John C. Penta)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:23:19 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Failhelm <failhelm@*****.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 5:23 pm
Subject: Re: Shadowrun 4?

> > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:15:18 -0500, Allura
> <allura@***********.org> wrote:
> >

> > This thread made me realize the significance of the Origins ad
> Adam posted a
> > while back: http://www.talkinabout.com/fanpro/origins_ad.jpg .
> So THAT"s
> > what "System Failure" is. Sounds interesting, <snip>
>
> boom, boom, talk about your major events. Such a thing would cascade
> world wide, and change everything.
>

OK, spill it. Whaaa?

John
Message no. 27
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:38:08 +0000
On Mar 16, 2005, at 01:23, John C. Penta wrote:

> OK, spill it. Whaaa?
>
> John

[

WARNING:

POSSIBLE

SPOILERS

AHEAD

]

AFAIK, that's the campaign/sourcebook that finally completes the
Deus/Renraku Arcology story arc. He was somehow "freed" at the end of
Brainscan, then stuff happened in Threats 2 which I'm not aware of
because my GM doesn't want me to read it, and this should be the final
chapter, which will obviously end with a 2029-level Matrix crash. I
look forward to playing through that. (note to self: refresh knowledge
on rogue AIs -- complete both System Shocks, and try not to lose the
savegames halfway through, this time)

Funnily enough, it's what's been planned for ages for (and what picked
my interest with) Cyberpunk V3: from what I'm told, the "Aftershock"
adventure ended like that, with the death of the Net. Then again,
Cyberpunk V3 seems to be the Duke Nukem Forever of roleplaying games.

Anyway, you guys sure like to end editions with a bang, huh? First
Super Tuesday, and now this... I like. ^^

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 28
From: alex.case@*******.net (Alexander Case)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:53:12 -0800
Max Noel wrote:

> http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopicv59
>
> Given that we're the 15th of March, I take it the information is
> genuine. Okay, now *that* should spark some discussion on this list,
> shouldn't it?
>
> Me? I hope the rules will be completely unified, finally removing
> that "I'm playing 4 different games duct taped together" feeling, as
> well as some unnecessary rule complexity. And I hope the vehicle rules
> will make sense.
>
> Kudos keeping it a secret until now (complete with SR4 d20 hoaxes
> on the forums!), Adam et al.
>
> Flame away.

My reaction goes something like this - Gosh-darn it. I haven't even
purchased all the SR3 books I've been meaning to get yet. Hell, I came
in really late to SR3 due to budget issues, and, considering the price
of corebooks this day and age, This may actually force me to drop the
game! I'm having a devil of a time finding a group as it is. :'(



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005
Message no. 29
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 02:12:03 +0000
On Mar 16, 2005, at 01:53, Alexander Case wrote:

> My reaction goes something like this - Gosh-darn it. I haven't even
> purchased all the SR3 books I've been meaning to get yet. Hell, I came
> in really late to SR3 due to budget issues, and, considering the price
> of corebooks this day and age, This may actually force me to drop the
> game! I'm having a devil of a time finding a group as it is. :'(

Well, nobody's forcing you to upgrade. Or even to buy every SR3 book
ever released, for that matter. There are members of this very list who
were still playing SR2 not that long ago (Korishinzo, among others)...

Oh, and the PDFs that came out recently are cheaper than the actual
books. That's a Good Thing. I hope they're selling well, by the way,
because they're truly an instance of Best Thing Ever(TM).

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 30
From: jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:14:37 -0800 (PST)
> > Oh yeah. Try to advance a character 5 years while
> the timeline goes on
> > and on and on...

Just have them frozen seemingly midway through a run
in some odd research facility, then thawed after five
years when the researchers need their help. I hope
this will be the standard suggestion that FanPro
provides for SR3-to-SR4 campaign conversion *snicker*.

It seems the awakened and the cybernetically enhanced
will have the same stomping grounds now (deckers will
probably be able to do their job in person and without
an actual matrix access point) allows them to go on
runs. Can't wait to see these rules abused :).

I wonder what will happen to riggers, guessing that if
the rules are being streamlined vehicular combat will
probably be significantly reduced in complexity.
Perhaps the new decking rules will be taking over a
lot of the stuff riggers are currently doing. I could
of course be totally wrong, though.

It sounds like the world's getting an overhaul that's
supposed to leave all the good bits and get rid of the
accumulated crud (or at least give FanPro -or any GM,
for that matter- an excuse to do away with/change
certain parts of the setting).

cheers,

Jan Jaap



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Message no. 31
From: pentaj2@********.edu (John C. Penta)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:22:29 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Max Noel <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr>
Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:12 pm
Subject: Re: Shadowrun 4?

>
> On Mar 16, 2005, at 01:53, Alexander Case wrote:
>
> > My reaction goes something like this - Gosh-darn it. I haven't
> even
> > purchased all the SR3 books I've been meaning to get yet. Hell,
> I came
> > in really late to SR3 due to budget issues, and, considering the
> price
> > of corebooks this day and age, This may actually force me to
> drop the
> > game! I'm having a devil of a time finding a group as it is. :'(
>
> Well, nobody's forcing you to upgrade. Or even to buy every SR3
> book
> ever released, for that matter. There are members of this very
> list who
> were still playing SR2 not that long ago (Korishinzo, among others)...
>
> Oh, and the PDFs that came out recently are cheaper than the
> actual
> books. That's a Good Thing. I hope they're selling well, by the
> way,
> because they're truly an instance of Best Thing Ever(TM).

That's not the question, Max.

The question is: How much is SR4 (God, it SCARES me to say that!) going to cost us? In
hardcopy?

I mean, damn, I switch comps every time I move from school to home. How many copies of SR4
PDFs would I have to buy? I'd prefer not to think that far.

John
Message no. 32
From: zebulingod@*******.net (Zebulin)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:27:21 -0800
John C. Penta wrote:
>
> That's not the question, Max.
>
> The question is: How much is SR4 (God, it SCARES me to say
> that!) going to cost us? In hardcopy?
>
> I mean, damn, I switch comps every time I move from school to
> home. How many copies of SR4 PDFs would I have to buy? I'd
> prefer not to think that far.
>
> John
>

Would it be possible to have more than 1000 hard copies even produced? The
binding for SR3 books is atrocious, and I'd love to actually have the main
book in hard cover without having to be a lucky 1 in a thousand like last
time.

Zebulin

>From The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord

15. I will never employ any device with a digital countdown. If I find that
such a device is absolutely unavoidable, I will set it to activate when the
counter reaches 117 and the hero is just putting his plan into operation.
Message no. 33
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 02:36:45 +0000
On Mar 16, 2005, at 02:22, John C. Penta wrote:

> That's not the question, Max.
>
> The question is: How much is SR4 (God, it SCARES me to say that!)
> going to cost us? In hardcopy?
>
> I mean, damn, I switch comps every time I move from school to home.
> How many copies of SR4 PDFs would I have to buy? I'd prefer not to
> think that far.
>
> John

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I was referring to the SR2 and 3 PDFs
for those who want to complete their collection.

Besides, the PDFs not being DRM'd in any way (*this* is what makes
them into an instance of Best Thing Ever(TM) -- now if Adobe removed
their hands from their asses and coded a real PDF viewer for PalmOS
instead of the ridiculous piece of shit they currently offer, I'd be in
heaven), I don't see why you would have to buy one PDF of each book for
each computer you view them with. Just burn everything to a CD (heck,
store them on a flash thumbdrive) and off you go.
Besides, while I hope SR4 PDFs are on the release schedule, I won't be
holding my breath for this one.

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 34
From: Steve.Garrard@********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:57:50 +0200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Message no. 35
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:17:16 +0100
On Mar 16, 2005, at 09:57, Steve Garrard wrote:

> Graht wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:41:32 +0100, Scott Harrison
>> <scott@**********.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 15, 2005, at 20:51, Lars Wagner Hansen wrote:
>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Harrison"
>>>> <scott@**********.com>
>>>> To: "Shadowrun Discussion" <shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:46 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Shadowrun 4?
>>>>
>>>> Scott will you please turn off you digital signature.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Sorry, I don't even think about those. Anyway, I thought
>>> someone said they would be stripped from the list. This one should
>>> not have it since I clicked it off. :-)
>>>
>>> --
>>>
·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑
·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯
Scott Harrison PGP Key ID:
>> 0x0f0b5b86
>>>
>>
>> Well... the signature isn't HTML. It's actually coming
>> across as text, so the listserv isn't stripping it. The
>> problem is that your mailer (and mine for that matter) is
>> trying to interpret the strings of
"=C2=B7=F0=90=91=95=..
>> etc". Gmail doesn't seem to mind it (shows up as a series of
>> little boxes in mine). I don't think I could get the
>> listserv to strip it if I tried. Believe it or not, his
>> signature falls well within the bounds of the ShadowRN Guidelines.
>>
>> Scott, if you could turn off or modify your signature, that
>> would be great. But I'm not going to try to enforce this one
>> (Adam or Mark on the other hand might ;).
>
> Actually before he turned it off I couldn't even open his mails, so
> please don't turn it back on.
>
There are two issues here.

(1) I was signing my messages with a digital signature. This seems to
have caused the "not openable" mail issue.
(2) My .sig contains Unicode characters that may be difficult for some
people to read. If you have a system that handles Unicode but does not
have a font to display the characters you should get little boxes or
something similar. If your system cannot handle Unicode properly it
may show things like =C2...

--
·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑
·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯 Scott
Harrison PGP Key ID: 0x0f0b5b86
Message no. 36
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:04:43 +0100
According to MC23, on 15-03-2005 21:51 the word on the street was...

> So they are promising "a completely new rules system" and yet they
> say "Source material from previous editions will still be compatible".

Source material is, I think, the blurb in the books, not the game rules.
It doesn't matter what rules you're using, whether it's SR1, SRII, SR3,
the SR4-to-be, Graht's 2D6 system, or whatever for you to be able to
read in New Seattle what the city is like, does it?

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? 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. 37
From: caseless@*****.com (Stephen Allee)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 02:16:21 -0800
I just hope / pray / am begging that the rules for demolitions are
fleshed out. It would really be nice to have the rules / costs /
availability for shaped charges and breaching charges. I know that it
is a fairly miniscule thing to whine about in the grand scheme of
things, and I'm not stressing heavily about it, but it would be really
aawesome to be able to slap an Arlieghgram on a wall and cut a new
doorway without having to use 81 kilos of commercial explosives and
standing off 18 meters. Maybe some PETN ribbon and DetaFlex sheets
too. Ooh! And linear cutting charges! That'd be awesome! Sorry. Done
geeking about HE.
Message no. 38
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:19:25 +0100
According to Scott Harrison, on 16-03-2005 10:17 the word on the street
was...

> (2) My .sig contains Unicode characters that may be difficult for
> some people to read. If you have a system that handles Unicode but does
> not have a font to display the characters you should get little boxes or
> something similar. If your system cannot handle Unicode properly it may
> show things like Â...

Is the .sig supposed to actually say something, BTW? It shows up in my
mailer (Thunderbird under OS X) as a dot followed by four squares, each
with a little wiggly line inside, then another dot and six more of those
boxes.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? 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. 39
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:29:29 +0100
On Mar 16, 2005, at 11:19, Gurth wrote:

> According to Scott Harrison, on 16-03-2005 10:17 the word on the
> street was...
>
>> (2) My .sig contains Unicode characters that may be difficult for
>> some people to read. If you have a system that handles Unicode but
>> does not have a font to display the characters you should get little
>> boxes or something similar. If your system cannot handle Unicode
>> properly it may show things like =C2...
>
> Is the .sig supposed to actually say something, BTW? It shows up in my
> mailer (Thunderbird under OS X) as a dot followed by four squares,
> each with a little wiggly line inside, then another dot and six more
> of those boxes.
>
>
That is because you are running on a Mac OS X system, which does the
proper thing since you don't have a font that can handle it. The first
part of my signature is just my name in Shavian. The dots are namer
dots, and the 4 and 6 characters just say "Scott" and "Harrison" in
Shavian.

--
·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑
·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯 Scott
Harrison PGP Key ID: 0x0f0b5b86
Message no. 40
From: westiex@********.net (Aramis)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 23:17:00 +1000
>> Oh, and the PDFs that came out recently are cheaper than the
>>actual
>>books. That's a Good Thing. I hope they're selling well, by the
>>way,
>>because they're truly an instance of Best Thing Ever(TM).
>>
>>
>
>That's not the question, Max.
>
>The question is: How much is SR4 (God, it SCARES me to say that!) going to cost us? In
hardcopy?
>
>I mean, damn, I switch comps every time I move from school to home. How many copies of
SR4 PDFs would I have to buy? I'd prefer not to think that far.
>
>John
>
>
>
You need to buy one copy. With that copy you can -

Backup said copy to disk, whether CD or DVD, or stick onto a flash drive.
Print out said copy.

You cannot -

Make copies for friends

Granted, I'm not a lawyer or work for any of the companies associated
with selling the PDFs (Fanpro/Drive thru RPG), but just check out the
latter's FAQ section.

Westiex.
Message no. 41
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:08:21 -0800
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 02:16:21 -0800, Stephen Allee <caseless@*****.com> wrote:
> I just hope / pray / am begging that the rules for demolitions are
> fleshed out. It would really be nice to have the rules / costs /
> availability for shaped charges and breaching charges. I know that it
> is a fairly miniscule thing to whine about in the grand scheme of
> things, and I'm not stressing heavily about it, but it would be really
> aawesome to be able to slap an Arlieghgram on a wall and cut a new
> doorway without having to use 81 kilos of commercial explosives and
> standing off 18 meters. Maybe some PETN ribbon and DetaFlex sheets
> too. Ooh! And linear cutting charges! That'd be awesome! Sorry. Done
> geeking about HE.

What he said!
Message no. 42
From: scotthiller2002@*****.com (Scott Hiller)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:52:12 -0800 (PST)
What I'd like to see is a Shadowrun Gazeteer book to
be put out. Yeah, it'd be a massive book, but I think
it'd be worthwhile.

It would cover the entire globe, giving the player a
sense of what each locale is like so they can use that
in their games. What I'd like to see in this Shadowrun
book, also, is a section giving GMs guidelines on how
to build their OWN locales. Obviously the developers
of Shadowrun aren't going to be able to cover anything
else but the nations and major cities across the
globe, so if the GM wants an adventure to take place
in a place that was not covered, then they should have
guidelines from the Shadowrun developers to make their
own.

Now, I am not saying, "micromanage the GM to death,"
but give them just enough that they can take it and
run with it if they wish.

-Scott
Message no. 43
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:10:16 +0000
On Mar 16, 2005, at 15:52, Scott Hiller wrote:

> What I'd like to see is a Shadowrun Gazeteer book to
> be put out. Yeah, it'd be a massive book, but I think
> it'd be worthwhile.
>
> It would cover the entire globe, giving the player a
> sense of what each locale is like so they can use that
> in their games. What I'd like to see in this Shadowrun
> book, also, is a section giving GMs guidelines on how
> to build their OWN locales. Obviously the developers
> of Shadowrun aren't going to be able to cover anything
> else but the nations and major cities across the
> globe, so if the GM wants an adventure to take place
> in a place that was not covered, then they should have
> guidelines from the Shadowrun developers to make their
> own.

Well, that's what the SixthWorldWiki is for, isn't it?

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 44
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:24:15 -0800
Just a thought, but if the target date is this year, we might be
spinning our wheels in making a wish list.

Or is the Aug. 05' something else?
Message no. 45
From: frontendchaos@**********.com (Jim Montgomery)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:28:23 -0500
bandwidthoracle wrote:

> Whoo, Where can I pre-order?
>
> My only concern is that they've changed my precious matrix rules too
> much (We loves our Matrix 3),
> if it's going to be compatible does that mean the matrix will still be
> generally the same?
>
>
The new Matrix sounds similar to Virtuality from RTal's
Cybergeneration... virtual reality overlaid on top of the real world,
which can be manipulated by hackers, but seen by anyone with trodes,
jacks, goggles, whatever. That was one thing I thought was goofy in
Cybergeneration (as in goofy even considering the already-goofy setting).

Jim
Message no. 46
From: pentaj2@********.edu (John C. Penta)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:29:52 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Montgomery <frontendchaos@**********.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 11:28 am
Subject: Re: Shadowrun 4?

> bandwidthoracle wrote:
>
> > Whoo, Where can I pre-order?
> >
> > My only concern is that they've changed my precious matrix rules
> too
> > much (We loves our Matrix 3),
> > if it's going to be compatible does that mean the matrix will
> still be
> > generally the same?
> >
> >
> The new Matrix sounds similar to Virtuality from RTal's
> Cybergeneration... virtual reality overlaid on top of the real
> world,
> which can be manipulated by hackers, but seen by anyone with
> trodes,
> jacks, goggles, whatever. That was one thing I thought was goofy
> in
> Cybergeneration (as in goofy even considering the already-goofy
> setting).
> Jim

That DOES sound odd. And, frankly, a little ridicoulous.
Message no. 47
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:32:37 +0100
According to Jim Montgomery, on 16-03-2005 17:28 the word on the street
was...

> The new Matrix sounds similar to Virtuality from RTal's
> Cybergeneration... virtual reality overlaid on top of the real world,
> which can be manipulated by hackers, but seen by anyone with trodes,
> jacks, goggles, whatever. That was one thing I thought was goofy in
> Cybergeneration (as in goofy even considering the already-goofy setting).

But the upside of it is that it would make the Matrix something that
actually gets used during "real" shadowruns, instead of being completely
separate from it.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? 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. 48
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:15:52 -0800 (PST)
--- Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> According to Jim Montgomery, on 16-03-2005 17:28 the word on the
> street
> was...
>
> > The new Matrix sounds similar to Virtuality from RTal's
> > Cybergeneration... virtual reality overlaid on top of the real
> world,
> > which can be manipulated by hackers, but seen by anyone with
> trodes,
> > jacks, goggles, whatever. That was one thing I thought was goofy
> in
> > Cybergeneration (as in goofy even considering the already-goofy
> setting).
>
> But the upside of it is that it would make the Matrix something
> that
> actually gets used during "real" shadowruns, instead of being
> completely
> separate from it.

Actually, simply creating a "wireless peripheral device" for
cyberdecks with stats akin to other connection methods (land line,
satellite uplink, etc) is one great way to get the decker out of his
safehouse and on the run. Deck in backpack (armored) and away they
go.

======Korishinzo
--Why wait for someone else to customize your game for you? :)




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 49
From: adamj@*********.com (Adam Jury)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:24:05 -0800
On 15-Mar-05, at 2:15 PM, Allura wrote:

> This thread made me realize the significance of the Origins ad Adam
> posted a
> while back: http://www.talkinabout.com/fanpro/origins_ad.jpg

*blows kisses*

Just one of the few clues that seemed to be a little too subtle for a
large part of the crowd... :-)

Adam
Message no. 50
From: Paul.Grosse@***********.com (Paul Grosse)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:38:18 -0500
> --- Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> > According to Jim Montgomery, on 16-03-2005 17:28 the word on the
> > street was...
> >
> > > The new Matrix sounds similar to Virtuality from RTal's
> > > Cybergeneration... virtual reality overlaid on top of the real
> > world,
> > > which can be manipulated by hackers, but seen by anyone with
> > trodes,
> > > jacks, goggles, whatever. That was one thing I thought was goofy
> > in
> > > Cybergeneration (as in goofy even considering the already-goofy
> > setting).
> >
> > But the upside of it is that it would make the Matrix
> something that
> > actually gets used during "real" shadowruns, instead of being
> > completely separate from it.
>
> Actually, simply creating a "wireless peripheral device" for
> cyberdecks with stats akin to other connection methods (land
> line, satellite uplink, etc) is one great way to get the
> decker out of his safehouse and on the run. Deck in backpack
> (armored) and away they go.
>
> =======
> Korishinzo
> --Why wait for someone else to customize your game for you? :)
>

See www.xybernaut.com :)

Paul G.
Message no. 51
From: jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 09:47:51 -0800 (PST)
--- Jan Jaap van Poelgeest <jjvanp@*****.com> wrote:
>
> > > Oh yeah. Try to advance a character 5 years
> while
> > the timeline goes on
> > > and on and on...
>
> Just have them frozen seemingly midway through a run
> in some odd research facility, then thawed after
> five
> years when the researchers need their help. I hope
> this will be the standard suggestion that FanPro
> provides for SR3-to-SR4 campaign conversion
> *snicker*.

Come to think of it, I have a better idea. Simply have
the PCs shot to hell on a run, then wake them out of
their coma 5 years later with a *huge* DocWagon bill
to pay off (that is, assuming their comatose corpses
survive the System Failure...).

Anyone care to make up more of such jocular
suggestions for SR3-to-SR4 conversion? A compilation
would be a joy to behold.

> It seems the awakened and the cybernetically
> enhanced
> will have the same stomping grounds now (deckers
> will
> probably be able to do their job in person and
> without
> an actual matrix access point) allows them to go on
> runs. Can't wait to see these rules abused :).

I guess this will result in the average Joe on the
streets functioning in either Astral Reality
(awakened), Mundane Reality or Hyper Reality (matrix).
Mundanes will presumably be capable of
superspecialisation; placing bullets _very_ precisely,
or just being better at carrying out tasks, be it
social engineering or baking cookies. Plenty of
crossover can ensue, though I don't think Awakened and
Hyper Reality are a very feasible/fun combination
(Spellcasting Otaku?).

More game balance: I imagine the awakened and
hyperreal will be capable of affecting their target
numbers in the mundane world by virtue of the
information/capabilities they have access to in their
own realities (this besides actions in their own
realities that translate directly into mundane
effects). Their actual skill at carrying out these
activities is reduced, however, as much of their
effort goes into affecting their target numbers in the
first place.
I.e.: a decker might see a whole nexus of information
regarding his conversational partner floating around
before his eyes, but in order for this information to
significantly affect his Etiquette target number, he
will have to be such a good decker that he cannot have
a high Etiquette skill.
Depending on what a PC wants to accomplish, there
might be certain optimal methods of accomplishing such
tasks, so in certain cases crossing borders between
realities will be logical and hopefully improve the
play experience if the borders between the various
realities are easy enough to cross (or: "the rules
must be streamlined and make sense for the above
conception of the game to be fun").

> I wonder what will happen to riggers, guessing that
> if
> the rules are being streamlined vehicular combat
> will
> probably be significantly reduced in complexity.
> Perhaps the new decking rules will be taking over a
> lot of the stuff riggers are currently doing. I
> could
> of course be totally wrong, though.

Perhaps riggers and adepts will be positioned on the
borderline between resp. hyper and mundane/awakened
and mundane. I'm guessing that magic is going to
remain largely the same in functioning and efficacy,
but for Riggers this might mean that they can run
around and hack into machines on the fly (how cool.).
Think of using the robotic arms in a production
facility for taking out some guards. For those into
computer gaming, remember System Shock and Deus Ex's
mechanics for taking over gun turrets and the likes.

> It sounds like the world's getting an overhaul
> that's
> supposed to leave all the good bits and get rid of
> the
> accumulated crud (or at least give FanPro -or any
> GM,
> for that matter- an excuse to do away with/change
> certain parts of the setting).

I would say that given the amount of published
material already in existence, this is probably a move
FanPro *has* to perform. Otherwise, how are they going
to continue cranking out fairly generic location and
setting sourcebooks? To be honest, I can barely
remember the last time I was truly excited by an
upcoming SR sourcebook, although finally getting the
Denver box set gave me a rush recently :). I do in
fact partially agree with the chap who complained that
too much is sacrificed for the sake of moving the SR
timeline along; Shadowrun could use some of that
detailing that that Harn game seems to have. On the
other hand, if the future is anything like today, then
the way places are is liable to change from one week
to the next (unlike in medieval times). I think most
recent Shadowrun supplements aim to bring across the
overall "feeling" of the setting leaving the GM to
fill in the details. Finding one's own interpretation
of what consists a fun way of running a Shadowrun
campaign is in this sense perhaps an essential part of
the whole setting ("Find Your Own Truth").

Shadowrun will remain just that with SR4, IMO.
Incidentally, does anyone have a reasonable indication
of how many RPGs have managed to persist through at
least 4 editions? I think Shadowrun has shown itself
to be fairly hardy so far and a new edition might be
just the thing to draw in the fresh influx of players
it needs. Doing so by incorporating recent themes of
popular culture (somebody mentioned the Matrix movies)
to make the essentially [late] 80's notion of
cyberpunk more palatable to a new audience is entirely
acceptable, to me anyway. I just hope the line doesn't
go belly up now that I've said that :).

> cheers,
>
> Jan Jaap

I just responded to my own post. Tee Hee.

cheers,

JJ



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Message no. 52
From: l-hansen@*****.tele.dk (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:39:46 +0100
From: "Jan Jaap van Poelgeest" <jjvanp@*****.com>
>
> Incidentally, does anyone have a reasonable indication
> of how many RPGs have managed to persist through at
> least 4 editions?

Call of Cthulhu is currently in it's 6th edition, in addition to a D20
edition and Quick Start Rules. Don't know about other Chaosium RPGs, but
they have been around for a long time aswell.

I think Vampire and Werewolf are in their 4th edition aswell. In addition to
spin offs like Dark Ages, Western etc.

(A)D&D is in it's 3.5th edition, with countless of editions of D&D.

Paranoia XP? I haven't got a clue about which edition it is, but it could
easely be 4th or 5th.

Any other?
Message no. 53
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:39:51 -0800
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 Lars Wagner Hansen <l-hansen@*****.tele.dk> wrote:
> From: "Jan Jaap van Poelgeest" <jjvanp@*****.com>
> >
> > Incidentally, does anyone have a reasonable indication
> > of how many RPGs have managed to persist through at
> > least 4 editions?
>
> Call of Cthulhu is currently in it's 6th edition, in addition to a D20
> edition and Quick Start Rules. Don't know about other Chaosium RPGs, but
> they have been around for a long time aswell.
>
> I think Vampire and Werewolf are in their 4th edition aswell. In addition to
> spin offs like Dark Ages, Western etc.
>
> (A)D&D is in it's 3.5th edition, with countless of editions of D&D.
>
> Paranoia XP? I haven't got a clue about which edition it is, but it could
> easely be 4th or 5th.

Several others, although D&D took the longest per edition, approx 1
decade (sometimes longer per edition change). I heard that the
original SR was a miracle RPG, produced in 1 yr and actually survived
the late 80's early 90's RPG surge. I have gotten used to non-D&D
products changing editions about every 3-5 yrs. I become more careful
about what kinds of books I purchase as a result.

I think that its impressive that it took about 16 yrs to hit its 4th edition.
Message no. 54
From: jhubert@***.de (JÃŒrgen_Hubert)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:38:01 +0100
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lars Wagner Hansen" <l-hansen@*****.tele.dk>
To: "Shadowrun Discussion" <shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: Shadowrun 4?


> From: "Jan Jaap van Poelgeest" <jjvanp@*****.com>
>>
>> Incidentally, does anyone have a reasonable indication
>> of how many RPGs have managed to persist through at
>> least 4 editions?
>
> Call of Cthulhu is currently in it's 6th edition, in addition to a D20
> edition and Quick Start Rules. Don't know about other Chaosium RPGs, but
> they have been around for a long time aswell.
>
> I think Vampire and Werewolf are in their 4th edition aswell. In addition
> to spin offs like Dark Ages, Western etc.
>
> (A)D&D is in it's 3.5th edition, with countless of editions of D&D.
>
> Paranoia XP? I haven't got a clue about which edition it is, but it could
> easely be 4th or 5th.
>
> Any other?

GURPS has recently hit its fourth edition. About time, too - the last
edition was published in 1989 (!), although the two Compendia were often
said to be GURPS V3.5.

Nethertheless, fifteen years with a steady supply of supplements, but
_without_ any edition changes is a long time...


- Jürgen Hubert

Urbis: http://juergen.the-huberts.net/dnd/urbis/index.html
LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/~jhubert/
Message no. 55
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:58:12 +0100
According to Lars Wagner Hansen, on 20-03-2005 17:39 the word on the
street was...

>> Incidentally, does anyone have a reasonable indication
>> of how many RPGs have managed to persist through at
>> least 4 editions?

Phoenix Command had four editions between 1986 and 1992 or so, but it's
not technically an RPG.

> I think Vampire and Werewolf are in their 4th edition aswell.

The current books are, IIRC. Original Vampire from 1992 I think, then
the second edition a few years later, a third edition about five years
ago, and now the renamed editions.

> Paranoia XP? I haven't got a clue about which edition it is, but it
> could easely be 4th or 5th.

Xp is 4th edition, if you don't look at the actual edition numbers on
the books. Although if you want to believe the XP designers, it's
actually the third, because they refuse to acknowledge the 5th edition.
(All that should make sense if you know something about Paranoia ;)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? 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. 56
From: nichlas.hummelsberger@*****.com (Nichlas Hummelsberger)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:23:41 +0100
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:39:51 -0800, Failhelm <failhelm@*****.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 Lars Wagner Hansen <l-hansen@*****.tele.dk> wrote:
> > From: "Jan Jaap van Poelgeest" <jjvanp@*****.com>
> > >
> > > Incidentally, does anyone have a reasonable indication
> > > of how many RPGs have managed to persist through at
> > > least 4 editions?
> >
> > Call of Cthulhu is currently in it's 6th edition, in addition to a D20
> > edition and Quick Start Rules. Don't know about other Chaosium RPGs, but
> > they have been around for a long time aswell.
> >
> > I think Vampire and Werewolf are in their 4th edition aswell. In addition to
> > spin offs like Dark Ages, Western etc.
> >
> > (A)D&D is in it's 3.5th edition, with countless of editions of D&D.
> >
> > Paranoia XP? I haven't got a clue about which edition it is, but it could
> > easely be 4th or 5th.
>
> Several others, although D&D took the longest per edition, approx 1
> decade (sometimes longer per edition change). I heard that the
> original SR was a miracle RPG, produced in 1 yr and actually survived
> the late 80's early 90's RPG surge. I have gotten used to non-D&D
> products changing editions about every 3-5 yrs. I become more careful
> about what kinds of books I purchase as a result.
>
> I think that its impressive that it took about 16 yrs to hit its 4th edition.

I think Warhammer FRP has that record.. the Second Edition is coming
out here ~20+ years after first edition :)
Message no. 57
From: adamj@*********.com (Adam Jury)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:28:59 -0700
On 21-Mar-05, at 2:23 PM, Nichlas Hummelsberger wrote:

> I think Warhammer FRP has that record.. the Second Edition is coming
> out here ~20+ years after first edition :)

And it looks very, very nice. I saw an advance copy at the GAMA Trade
Show last week, and was very impressed. Green Ronin and Black
Industries have created a winner with WHFRP2.

Adam
Message no. 58
From: l-hansen@*****.tele.dk (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:35:00 +0100
From: "Nichlas Hummelsberger" <nichlas.hummelsberger@*****.com>
>
> I think Warhammer FRP has that record.. the Second Edition is coming
> out here ~20+ years after first edition :)

WFRP was published in 1986, so it "only" 19 years :-)

Lars
Message no. 59
From: weberm@*******.net (Ubiquitous)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:53:33 -0500
At 03:51 PM 3/15/2005 -0500, MC23 <mc23@**********.com> wrote:

>> Shadowrun, Fourth Edition offers a completely new rules system that is
>> simple, integrated and accessible. The state-of-the-art has also been
>> advanced, introducing a new level of augmented reality, new gear, new
>> magical discoveries, and more.
>>
>> This hardcover rulebook contains all the rules gamemasters and players
>> need to create characters and ongoing adventures set in the popular
>> Shadowrun universe. Note that the Shadowrun, Fourth Edition will
>> replace the Shadowrun, Third Edition rules set. Source material from
>> previous editions will still be compatible.
>
> So they are promising "a completely new rules system" and yet they say
>"Source material from previous editions will still be compatible". Have
>your cake and eat it too. I'm not buying it. I dread the rapid timeline
>advance more than anything else. This could be it for me.

I'm guessing it's going to be the same lame reasoning they gave for 3E D&D;
"the source book material is fine but the stats for NPCs will have to be
'converted' to the new rules".

Bah, I'm too old for this.
--
"Ted, sweetheart...somebody's left a wicker basket with a little baby in it
on our front doorstep."
"Just leave it out there on the stoop, honey. The cats'll get it."
- Red Meat http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
Message no. 60
From: loneeagle@********.co.uk (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:52:56 +0000
At 09:23 PM 3/21/2005, Nichlas Hummelsberger wrote:
>I think Warhammer FRP has that record.. the Second Edition is coming
>out here ~20+ years after first edition :)

Nineteen years AKAIK, first published in 1986.
And for the record I expect the 2nd Edition to be as much of a hack job as
Graht's UB .pdf (stick to the real thing omae, only the original feels
right :-D ) full of "Ooh, I'm twelve! I want to play Teclis!" shenanegans
and "Ooh look, now you have to play with miniatures... And the <insert
miniature line GW are currently trying to push here> are soooooooooooo
hard!!!".
Leave my blooming system alone! I'd only just figured out how to tie the
blooming "Realms of Sorcery" (a supplement sited in the original rules
(published in 1986) which was released in (IIRC) 2003) rules into the game
in a sensible manner... and that took an almost complete rewrite...

Very few games systems are actually improved in their revisions IMHO,
Shadowrun being a notable exception. (Please don't wreck my games system
<puppy dog eyes>).


--
Lone Eagle
"Hold up lads, I got an idea."

www.wyrmtalk.co.uk - Please be patient, this site is under construction

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d++(---) s++: a->? C++(+) US++ P! L E? W++ N o? K? w+ O! M- V? PS+ PE-()
Y PGP? t+@ 5++ X- R+>+++$>* tv b+++ DI++++ D+ G++ e+ h r* y+>+++++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

GCC0.2: y75>?.uk[NN] G87 S@:@@[SR] B+++ f+ RM(RR) rm++ rr++ l++(--) m- w
s+(+++) GM+++(-) A GS+(-) h++ LA+++ CG--- F c+
Message no. 61
From: anders@**********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:08:46 -0800
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:52:56 +0000
Lone Eagle <loneeagle@********.co.uk> wrote:
>[snip]
> Very few games systems are actually improved in their revisions IMHO,
> Shadowrun being a notable exception. (Please don't wreck my games system
> <puppy dog eyes>).
>
Each revision of SR so far has been a well received improvement.
--Anders
Message no. 62
From: jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:33:13 -0800 (PST)
> Very few games systems are actually improved in
> their revisions IMHO,
> Shadowrun being a notable exception. (Please don't
> wreck my games system
> <puppy dog eyes>).

I guess a good revision will allow people to take the
game everywhere it'd go previously, but with less
effort involved while retaining the same in-game
results (i.e.: stuff that was difficult to accomplish
in-game in the previous edition ought to remain
difficult in the new, except if its difficulty has
been made redundant by new rules/technology/plot
developments). Additionally, the revised system will
have to have several open ends that one can expand
upon in order to offer the PCs and GMs new and
exciting potential places to take the game.

In the case of Shadowrun I get the impression that
since 1st ed. a lot of (more detailed) activities were
added for PCs to engage in. Perhaps SR4 will collate
the resolution of all these capabilities into a more
streamlined package, while allowing for the option of
making them as complicated as one likes (this besides
the fact that a lot of SR3 rules are in fact more or
less optional anyway). Decking is a prime example of
something that needs to be made superficially simple
and straightforward, as all the little added
resolution procedures can really bog it down.
Nevertheless, their being there is a wonderful thing
for adding a bit of game depth to what would otherwise
be something fairly abstract. In all honesty the same
could be said for SR3 combat, but compared to some
systems it's already very simple. It's just such a
bummer to sometimes end up spending 3 hours resolving
less than 30 seconds of combat. On the other hand, I
prefer full-fledged combat situations not to occur too
often; most weapons are used in the course of the
storytelling, leaving only wound resolution -if that.
PC's shouldn't feel capable of safely hiding behind a
"surprise check" or their high initiative. Such an
attitude only results in GM munchkinism, where every
new NPC is bigger and badder just in order to command
respect from the players. Perhaps what matters most is
that a good story is being told, whose enactment every
participant enjoys in their own way (I find this so
hard to take seriously, as this sentiment always fails
to be expressed in the course of trying to please
everyone).

cheers,

Jan Jaap



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Message no. 63
From: dim.sum@******.com.sg (SK)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:18:03 +0800
I've always liked GURPS. 15 years without a new edition - that's a mark
of a good set of rules.

Man is incomplete until he's married.
Then he's finished.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jürgen Hubert [mailto:jhubert@***.de]
Sent: Monday, 21 March, 2005 2:38 AM
To: Shadowrun Discussion
Subject: Re: Shadowrun 4?

GURPS has recently hit its fourth edition. About time, too - the last
edition was published in 1989 (!), although the two Compendia were often
said to be GURPS V3.5.

Nethertheless, fifteen years with a steady supply of supplements, but
_without_ any edition changes is a long time...

- Jürgen Hubert
Message no. 64
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:58:41 -0800
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:18:03 +0800, SK <dim.sum@******.com.sg> wrote:
> I've always liked GURPS. 15 years without a new edition - that's a mark
> of a good set of rules.

Not always, sometimes a new edition in this industry comes from many
things. Takeovers, license changes, and so forth. It's always nice
though when the rules are actually re-worked by those that love, play
and understand the system. Not always, but usually.
Message no. 65
From: weberm@*******.net (Ubiquitous)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:02:10 -0500
At 05:08 PM 3/21/2005 -0800, Anders wrote:

>Each revision of SR so far has been a well received improvement.

I'm still withholding judgement on SR3. Hmmph!
--
"Ted, sweetheart...somebody's left a wicker basket with a little baby in it
on our front doorstep."
"Just leave it out there on the stoop, honey. The cats'll get it."
- Red Meat http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
Message no. 66
From: mc23@**********.com (MC23)
Subject: Shadowrun 4?
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 23:34:06 -0500
On Mar 21, 2005, at 7:52 PM, Lone Eagle wrote:

> Very few games systems are actually improved in their revisions IMHO,
> Shadowrun being a notable exception. (Please don't wreck my games
> system <puppy dog eyes>).

Champions/ Hero system did well but the last edition suffers from a
poor layout design.
I find the current Hero book (pre-revised at least) to be undesirable
solely on layout and not content.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

"CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they
are,
not as they ought to be."
-The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce

I am MC23

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Shadowrun 4?, 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!