Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Shadowrun Companion (D. Dhost's Review ... LONG!)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 22:38:33 -0500
On Sat, 22 Aug 1998 19:08:22 -0500 Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET> writes:
>>Sure, the SrCo *GAG*....
><lots o' snippage>

>Okay, I've been here for a little while, and I keep seeing this reaction
to
>the SRC. And having seen it enough, I've got one little question that's
>bugging me: Why is the reaction so negative?
>
>---
>(>) Texas 2-Step
<SNIP SIg>

First, in the introduction, it says that the book contains stuff that
experienced players probably already incorporate into their games.

Okay, here's my evaluation of the book based off my opinion of it and my
perceptions of general attitudes on the list. Anyone interested, read on
but it's LONG! Anyone else feel free to delete. :)

Let's go through the Table of contents:

Character Creation
-The Concept (Semi-Con)
An elaboration basicly on what's in SR2, trying to hammer home starting
with the background first. (IMO, this is going to be the most ignored
sections ... In most cases, either you already do that or you won't do
that.)
-The Numbers (Semi-Con)
An elaboration on assigning numbers to match the character's
background.
-Character Creation Options (Semi-Pro)
Discusses mucking with the priority system but, IMO, didn't really go
into enough detail in some cases. Also introduces the fairly porpular
build point system and a 10 point system (this is actually a variation on
the priority system.).
-Edges and Flaws (Pro)
This is the system for fleshing out a character that can result in very
interesting characters but some people don't like it because it basicly
rewards players for doing what their supposed/expected to do.
-New Character Types (con)
FASA's PC Shapeshifter rules that most people dislike. I don't think I
know ANYone who uses the rules as they are printed. (ie, they use a
house rule or they don't use them.)
-Metahuman Variants (Null)
FASA's attempt to add spice to the standard races. The problem is that
most of the races are impractical/unbalanced. A comon House rule is to
allow the variants but the variants use the same stats as the base race.
Skills and Training
-Revised Skill Web (Pro)
-Revised Default Rule (Pro)
This *gasp* revises the defaulting rules and is, IMO, and improvement
over the basic rules
-Optional Dice Pools (?)
Don't if this is good or bad but it offers an Athletics Dice Pool a
Social Pool and a Dodge Pool (The Dodge is barely a change) for those who
think the game needs it.
-Optional Training Rules (Semi-Pro?)
Suggestions for training requirements for skill advancement. I think
alot of people have problems with this, but I'm not sure.
-Training Days (Semi-Pro?)
Related to the above, this section includes how much time per day is
normally spent on studying and how to get more out of your day (ie, get
in more hours)
-Improving Attributes (Semi-Pro?)
Suggets applying the above 2 sections towards attribute improvement.
How To Hire a Shadowrunner (Pro)
A nice little bit of shadowtalk that basicly says that a Johnson will
screw you (as a runner) over as SOP, and how s/he'll do it.
Contacts and Enemies
-Maximizing Contacts (Semi-Pro)
A little bit about how players and gamemasters can get the most out of
contacts in a RP sense. Unfortunately, it's a bit short for what it's
trying to accomplish.
-Contact Levels (Pro)
A variation of the basic Contact versus Buddy distinction in SR2. Also
includes a variation on maintaining contacts. The upkeep costs are, IMO,
a bit lame but the rationale and suggestion for getting around them in RP
are pretty good. (Basically, if, for example, you treat your contact to
a meal, the cost of the meal goes towards the upkeep.)
-Friends of a Friend (Con)
This is an optional rule which turns every contact into an information
network, which, IMO, is unbalancing and already reflected in the
contacts' natures.
-Special Contacts (Pro)
Goes into detail about certain contact types that needed some
elaboration. This is the section where getting access to Shadowland is
discussed.
-Playing Contacts (Pro)
Suggests really fleshing out contacts and making sure that they have
drawbacks and depth. The rundown is fairly extensive (compared to SR2),
taking up about 3 pages including one example.
-Enemies (Pro?)
Suggested rules for recording enemies and giving them stats as well as
roleplaying them.
Advanced Rules
-Karma (Pro)
Clarifies the karma rules (how to divide Good Karma and Karma Pool)
printed in SR2. This also includes the optional rules for trading
exxhanging nuyen and karma. (The guidelines, IMO, aren't that good but
aren't that bad... However, I gave the section a "Pro" rating mainly
because of the clarification of the Karma rules.) There is also an
optional rule for karma pools for games where the Karma Pools get too
big. Lastly, this has the Hand of God (HOG) optional rule.
-Magic (Pro)
This section gives optional rules to restrict magic (including a
gradual intiation system which is resembles [but is not identical to] a
net.book.) It also reprints the magical hazards from the Bug City book
and suggests apllying them against mages anytime. The section finishes
off with some other suggestions to keep magically active characters off
balance.
-Creating Prime Runners (?)
Suggestions for creating NPCs ... IMO, this section doesn't contribute
much. But, that may just be me and my games.
-State of the Art (?)
Optional rules for tech advancement ... the system seems good and
simply but it's still something I don't want to deal with in my games.
It basically serves to keep your characters spending money.
-Retirement (Pro?)
Suggestions for how to retire a character (aside from stop playing
him/her.;) IMO, the suggestions aren't as "useful" as the bit on leaving
a Team and replacing a team member that has retired. They are
interesting though.
-Optional Rules (Pro)
This section has some pretty good optional rules.
Running the Game (Pro)
These sections give gamemasters some help on gamemastering. The
"problem" is this is commonly (in other RPGs) printed in the main book.
Alternate Campaign Ideas
-Alternate Campaigns (Null)
Alternate campaigns where characters play Doc Wagon, Lone Star agents,
gangs etc ... Somewhat interesting but not overly useful, IMO.
-Gangs in Shadowrun (Pro)
Info on some pretty nasty gangs in SR.

Okay, that's my rundown. Overall I give it a low rating because a lot of
what was printed in it was not that useful, printed elsewhere, SHOULD
have been printed elsewhere, or most likely covered in houserules.

In retrospect it does seem to be a harsh review but I still feel it is
appropriate ... feel free to disagree. :) It's not the worst SR product
printed ... *thinks of DMZ and tales that Predator and Prey was worse*
... not even close. However, it is, IMO, sub-par.

D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 2
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Shadowrun Companion (D. Dhost's Review ... LONG!)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 01:01:35 -0500
>>Okay, I've been here for a little while, and I keep seeing this
>>reaction to the SRC. And having seen it enough, I've got one little
>>question that's bugging me: Why is the reaction so negative?
>
>First, in the introduction, it says that the book contains stuff that
>experienced players probably already incorporate into their games.

Got it. Read it. Why is this a bad thing? (No flames, just curious.)
I've been role-playing for a lot of years now, and I've GMed a few things
(and am finally getting brave enough to GM Shadowrun, which is a real bitch
after running Marvel Super Heroes all those years), and I've found a lot of
the stuff in SRC pretty cool and generally useful (another classic case of
YMMV).

Of course, I tend to run a more cinematic campaign than many. I tend to let
characters build up some power (I've got no problem with the race variants
in SRC, for instance, though I don't allow shapeshifter PCs). I tend to
have global conspiracies. I tend to have multiple layers of things going on
to keep the players paranoid. I tend to keep a sniper on the roof (or
something similar in the wings) for unruly PCs.

In general, however, I like the SRC and have found it useful. While I can
tell immediately just looking at it that some people aren't going to like
some sections, I can't see why it gets such an enormous negative reaction.
It's not that bad.

---
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 3
From: Jon Stoltenberg <rabiddwarf@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Shadowrun Companion (D. Dhost's Review ... LONG!)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 01:21:47 -0500
Patrick Goodman wrote:
> In general, however, I like the SRC and have found it useful. While I can
> tell immediately just looking at it that some people aren't going to like
> some sections, I can't see why it gets such an enormous negative reaction.
> It's not that bad.

I feel that the reason it is so unliked is because it is made for the
"average player/GM".

All of the die-hard munchkins, or "power gamers", don't like it because
there is nothing appealing in there for them. No new equipment or spells
and no new ways to "rape" the game system.

All of the older established players, or "Gurus", have usually developed
house rules, or use other people's house rules, for most of the useful
situations addressed in the book.

So who does that leave? Well, that leaves the newer players more
dedicated to role playing then power gaming and those who don't have a
whole lot of experience or knowledge of the game or the system.

The reason it is not well liked on the list, and PLEASE no one take this
as a personal attack on your gaming style, is that most of the people on
this list, at least most of the people who post regularly, are either
"Power Gamers" or "Gurus".
And accordingly they have little time for the SRC.

I happen to like it. I won't go indepth but I like the ideas and content
of MOST of the book and give it a favorable review. Now I have played SR
since SR1 came out, and I know the rules well, but I'm no "Guru" and I'm
certainly no Munchy. So take my opinion at its face value.

Just more drek from another fraggin' runner-wannabe.
--
Rabid Dwarf

Some people attempt to cope with reality.
I attempt to make reality cope with me.
Message no. 4
From: Wiebke & Birger Timm <WiebkeT@********.DE>
Subject: Re: Shadowrun Companion (D. Dhost's Review ... LONG!)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 15:01:10 +0200
Jon Stoltenberg wrote:

> So who does that leave? Well, that leaves the newer players more
> dedicated to role playing then power gaming and those who don't have a
> whole lot of experience or knowledge of the game or the system.

Right. That's what I think, too. I'm quite new to Shadowrun (I played DSA, a
German roleplay before) and I found the SRCo to have a lot of usefull stuff in
it. (And I really like the optional character generation rules.)

Blix
Message no. 5
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Shadowrun Companion (D. Dhost's Review ... LONG!)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 10:06:05 -0400
At 10:38 PM 8/22/98 -0500, you wrote:
<snip SrCo rundown>

>Okay, that's my rundown. Overall I give it a low rating because a lot of
>what was printed in it was not that useful, printed elsewhere, SHOULD
>have been printed elsewhere, or most likely covered in houserules.

Yeah, a lot of the stuff should have been printed elsewhere, but couldn't
be. Some of that stuff didn't get thought up until later, and other stuff
was a little too advanced. You can play contacts as in in the basic book,
but the stuff in SRCo gives you more detail. And saying that they didn't
have to print it because it was a house rule I think is unfair. One of the
reasons that you make houserules is because you find something that the
company didn't think of. I thought it was a GOOD thing for them to respond
to things like that.

>In retrospect it does seem to be a harsh review but I still feel it is
>appropriate ... feel free to disagree. :) It's not the worst SR product
>printed ... *thinks of DMZ and tales that Predator and Prey was worse*
>... not even close. However, it is, IMO, sub-par.

I'm still not sure why you call it subpar though. At a glance, you have 2
semi-con and 2 con. I see a lot more pros up there, 13 pro and 5 sem-pro.
The other sections you weren't sure about. So that's an 18-4 pro margin,
with some abstentions. How many pro sections does it have to have before it
makes it up to a par book?


Sommers, Confirmation #23263
"Hey, this is better than actually getting some work done."
Message no. 6
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Shadowrun Companion (D. Dhost's Review ... LONG!)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 18:17:17 -0500
On Mon, 24 Aug 1998 10:06:05 -0400 Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
writes:
>At 10:38 PM 8/22/98 -0500, you wrote:
><snip SrCo rundown>
>>Okay, that's my rundown. Overall I give it a low rating because a lot
of
>>what was printed in it was not that useful, printed elsewhere, SHOULD
>>have been printed elsewhere, or most likely covered in houserules.

>Yeah, a lot of the stuff should have been printed elsewhere, but
couldn't
>be. Some of that stuff didn't get thought up until later, and other
stuff
>was a little too advanced. You can play contacts as in in the basic
book,
>but the stuff in SRCo gives you more detail. And saying that they didn't
>have to print it because it was a house rule I think is unfair. One of
the
>reasons that you make houserules is because you find something that the
>company didn't think of. I thought it was a GOOD thing for them to
respond
>to things like that.

You missunderstand ... That post was intended to explain the *reaction*
from many of the listmembers. It wasn't really a gauge of if it was a
good book are not. That is why I including houserule considerations.
The net result is that in many cases, the SRCo contributes little to most
games. Additionally, it has a very small background material section.
(part of the fun of reading SR sourcebooks, IMO, is the *In character*
sections. Now, compare the section included in the SRCo to the sections
in other books. The campanion is poorer, IMO, for the absence of a
larger section...)

>>In retrospect it does seem to be a harsh review but I still feel it is
>>appropriate ... feel free to disagree. :) It's not the worst SR
product
>>printed ... *thinks of DMZ and tales that Predator and Prey was worse*
>>... not even close. However, it is, IMO, sub-par.

>I'm still not sure why you call it subpar though. At a glance, you have
2
>semi-con and 2 con. I see a lot more pros up there, 13 pro and 5
sem-pro.
>The other sections you weren't sure about. So that's an 18-4 pro margin,
>with some abstentions. How many pro sections does it have to have before
it
>makes it up to a par book?

That's the problem with writing FASA books ... Par is so damn high. ;)
Actually, the low rating despite high rating in many of the individual
sections comes partly from the material that should have been elsewhere
and partly from what WASN'T there.

>Sommers, Confirmation #23263
>"Hey, this is better than actually getting some work done."

D. Ghost (BABY #257)
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 7
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Shadowrun Companion (D. Dhost's Review ... LONG!)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 12:47:22 -0400
Actually, one of the primary reasons I, and some others, didn't like the
Companion is the simple fact we didn't *like* most of the rules.

I like the Edges & Flaws bit, since that can really help flesh out a PC
when done right.

The metahuman variants are a bit silly, but not really harmful.
Shapeshifters are potentially very unbalancing to the game. Sometimes they
aren't, but they easily can if unchecked. And I really despise the whole
Skill learning procedure; sorry, but I'd rather not have my PC or one of my
player's PCs unable to be played because they are training. Realistic,
perhaps. Playable, utterly not.

The rest of the rules are really of limited utility and add unnecessary
complexity to the game. Remember, I'm not a big fan of house rules, I
prefer to stay within canon.

So it's a rule book that I find contains optional rules that I simply don't
like for various reasons. I think SR would have been just fine without the
Companion.

Erik J.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Shadowrun Companion (D. Dhost's Review ... LONG!), 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.