Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: owen@***.edu.au (Owen McKerrow)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:35:23 +1000
Again from the offical site ( blog ) for everyones enjoyment .........

March 28th, 2005

SR4 FAQ, Part Two

Q. Will riggers be combined with deckers/hackers?
A. Yes, we are removing the distinction between them. This does not
mean riggers will go away — there will still be hackers who specialize
in drones, vehicle operations, or security systems. But the protocols,
technology, and game mechanics behind them will be the same.

Q. Will character generation keep the priority system or be point-based?
A. It is a point-based system.

Q. Will Open Tests be kept?
A. Nope, they’re gone.

Q. Will there be rules for converting characters from SR3 to SR4?
A. Yes, we will publish a conversion guide on the website (not in the
core rulebook).

Q. Has Mike Pondsmith abandoned CP203x to work on SR4?
A. *Blink* Uh, no.


Owen McKerrow
WebMaster, emlab
http://emlab.uow.edu.au

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -

People who prefer typing to pointing then seem to prefer acronyms to
save typing :-)
-Denis Stanton, On people using Command Line Interfaces
Message no. 2
From: allura@***********.org (Allura)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:53:57 -0500
> Again from the offical site ( blog ) for everyones enjoyment .........
>
> March 28th, 2005
>
> SR4 FAQ, Part Two
>
> Q. Will riggers be combined with deckers/hackers?
> A. Yes, we are removing the distinction between them. This
> does not mean riggers will go away - there will still be
> hackers who specialize in drones, vehicle operations, or
> security systems. But the protocols, technology, and game
> mechanics behind them will be the same.

Actually, good. From a game play POV, I think this will work out better.
You don't HAVE to combine the character archetypes, but they're now two
different directions. I think this works well.


> Q. Will character generation keep the priority system or be
> point-based?
> A. It is a point-based system.

Surprised at this; was thinking that the priority system was a "sacred cow"
that they'd keep (sorta like fireball's a third level spell in D&D....).
Then again, the priority system's really just a "packaged" form of the point
system. And it'll help avoid that "so what do I do with the 1mil now that
I've got my weapon focus..." problem, hopefully.


> Q. Will Open Tests be kept?
> A. Nope, they're gone.
>
> Q. Will there be rules for converting characters from SR3 to SR4?
> A. Yes, we will publish a conversion guide on the website
> (not in the core rulebook).


Good & good.

I might be one of the few, but I'm actually looking forward to this. I
think there's definitely places the rules could be tightened up, and I'm
enough of an SR junkie that I'm just flat-out curious to see the story
changes, not dreading them.

Joanna
Message no. 3
From: zebulingod@*******.net (Zebulin)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:35:12 -0800
Owen McKerrow wrote:
>
> SR4 FAQ, Part Two
>
> Q. Will riggers be combined with deckers/hackers?
> A. Yes, we are removing the distinction between them. This
> does not mean riggers will go away - there will still be
> hackers who specialize in drones, vehicle operations, or
> security systems. But the protocols, technology, and game
> mechanics behind them will be the same.
>

Uh, okay. I never pictured deckers and riggers as even having remotely near
the same mindset. I'd love to see how this gets explained. \:

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. 4
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:46:43 -0300
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:35:12 -0800, Zebulin <zebulingod@*******.net> wrote:

>
> Uh, okay. I never pictured deckers and riggers as even having remotely near
> the same mindset. I'd love to see how this gets explained. \:

The only thing that separated them before was a few skill points, a
piece of cyberware, and author fiat. It really should be dead easy for
a rigger with Computer to invest a couple runs' worth of money into a
cyberdeck and start decking, or for a decker with some vehicle skills
to buy himself a VCR and a few drones using the same money. The decker
mindset never seemed too different from that of a cocky fighter pilot,
IMHO, so the two aren't really that far apart.

Author fiat is covered by all the neurological mumbo-jumbo justifying
the hoops a character had to jump through in order to do both without
getting massive penalties for everything. It was basically equivalent
to saying only rogues can disarm traps with a DC greater than 20, and
a glaring contradiction for a game whose players vehemently claim has
no character classes.

--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
Message no. 5
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:47:14 +0200
On Mar 30, 2005, at 17:35, Zebulin wrote:

> Uh, okay. I never pictured deckers and riggers as even having remotely
> near
> the same mindset. I'd love to see how this gets explained. \:

What *I* want to see explained, is how the VCR suddenly became
unnecessary. And for that matter, what stat bonuses a VCR still gives
(because unifying deckers and riggers is not going to make the implant
and the people who had it before whatever caused riggers to become a
subtype of deckers happened go 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. 6
From: mattgbond@********.com (Matthew Bond)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:11:34 +0100
Zebulin wrote:
> Owen McKerrow wrote:
> >
> > SR4 FAQ, Part Two
> >
> > Q. Will riggers be combined with deckers/hackers?
> > A. Yes, we are removing the distinction between them. This
> > does not mean riggers will go away - there will still be
> > hackers who specialize in drones, vehicle operations, or
> > security systems. But the protocols, technology, and game
> > mechanics behind them will be the same.
> >
>
> Uh, okay. I never pictured deckers and riggers as even having
> remotely near the same mindset. I'd love to see how this gets
> explained. \:

My main SR character, Dice, started out as a covert ops decker, but she
became a rigger after a Shadowrun/Earthdawn crossover scenario saw us
helping out Llofwyr big-time in Barsaive, and he paying us back when we
returned to Seattle with 5 Million NuYen of Deltaware each (or a sweet
weapon focus for our Mage).

Oh, and we each (apart from the mage) ended up with a 'mysterious
cyberware' flaw too... (Which we eventually discovered was a kill switch
for the deltaware in case we ever turned on him... but a few tough runs
to gather the necessary data later, and after saving Dices' NSA covert
ops organistion from an internal NSA coup [I'm secretly a govt spy
reporting on which Corps are making moves on each other through the
shadow community, my 'Dark Secret'] we managed to get the kill switches
removed safely...)

Yes, it *is* a fairly 'high power' game, but it's not particularly
munchkin... our adversaries are usually high-end corp security or
powerful terrorist organisations rather than street level gangers...

Dice's mindset is "If I can Jack into it, I can control it", be it a
computer, a car, a drone, a building...

>From my point of view the SR4 Hacker being a merged decker/rigger seems
ideal. I presume if you concentrate on the computerside of things you
will be the equivalent of a decker, if you concentrate of the security
or vehicle side of thins you will be the equivalent of a Rigger. In d20
terms, I could see Decker and Rigger being prestige classes of the
overall Hacker class. If you focus your skills towards one aspect or the
other and you will become a specialist, or spread your skills around to
be more of a generalist that can do a reasonable amount of both.

Matt



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.5 - Release Date: 29/03/2005
Message no. 7
From: zebulingod@*******.net (Zebulin)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:55:58 -0800
Bira wrote:
>
> Author fiat is covered by all the neurological mumbo-jumbo
> justifying the hoops a character had to jump through in order
> to do both without getting massive penalties for everything.
> It was basically equivalent to saying only rogues can disarm
> traps with a DC greater than 20, and a glaring contradiction
> for a game whose players vehemently claim has no character classes.
>

The description of deckers was that they used the higher brain functions to
do their job, while riggers relied on the lower brain along with their
reaction. IE, Decking required thinking and Rigging required reaction. That
was the difference and is the difference in my mind.

Of course, this can be hand-waved away, since it was never really a *rule*
per se, but in my mind it's there. (Much like, in a lot of other people's
deckers are hard to use/play/GM.) [:

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. 8
From: zebulingod@*******.net (Zebulin)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:56:53 -0800
Max Noel wrote:
>
> What *I* want to see explained, is how the VCR suddenly
> became unnecessary. And for that matter, what stat bonuses a
> VCR still gives (because unifying deckers and riggers is not
> going to make the implant and the people who had it before
> whatever caused riggers to become a subtype of deckers
> happened go away).
>

That might piss some people off. Why does a rigger suddenly not need to
spend 5 essence to be the best in the game?

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. 9
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:27:48 -0300
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:55:58 -0800, Zebulin <zebulingod@*******.net> wrote:
> Bira wrote:
> >
> > Author fiat is covered by all the neurological mumbo-jumbo
> > justifying the hoops a character had to jump through in order
> > to do both without getting massive penalties for everything.
> > It was basically equivalent to saying only rogues can disarm
> > traps with a DC greater than 20, and a glaring contradiction
> > for a game whose players vehemently claim has no character classes.
> >
>
> The description of deckers was that they used the higher brain functions to
> do their job, while riggers relied on the lower brain along with their
> reaction. IE, Decking required thinking and Rigging required reaction. That
> was the difference and is the difference in my mind.

But that's just a setting explanation. IIRC, they came up with rather
late in the game, so to speak - the reasoning, and the ridiculous
penalties it justified, were buried in a supplement. It was like some
author tought a little niche protection was in order, and that was the
excuse.

I don't have a problem with the explanation existing in the setting,
but I think that backing it up with rules is silly, and limits player
freedom. Deckers and riggers are not separate "character classes", and
there should be nothing stopping a player from doing both things. If a
player finds it more interesting to do only one, there's nothing
preventing him from creating a more specialized character, either.


--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
Message no. 10
From: wilson.reis@*****.com (Wilson Reis)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:10:26 -0300
Seems to me that the VCR can still exist and be quite useful. Let´s
say, for example, that a non-VCR hacker is jack-controlling a
vehicle/drone. Perhaps he will have no Initiative or TN bonus except
that eventual +2 to Reaction and, on the other hand, VCR implanted
hackers will have +Xd6 +2X reaction extra and those handy (-VCR
rating) modifiers to some TNs...

We better wait and see, right ?

Will
Message no. 11
From: paul@*********.demon.co.uk (Paul Squires)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:58:56 +0100
Wilson Reis wrote:

> Seems to me that the VCR can still exist and be quite useful. Letīs
> say, for example, that a non-VCR hacker is jack-controlling a
> vehicle/drone. Perhaps he will have no Initiative or TN bonus except
> that eventual +2 to Reaction and, on the other hand, VCR implanted
> hackers will have +Xd6 +2X reaction extra and those handy (-VCR
> rating) modifiers to some TNs...
>
> We better wait and see, right ?
>
> Will
>
Wouldn't this be pretty similar to the existing datajack control
mechanism. I'm not sure what the actual effect is intended to be, and
I'm slightly sceptical about it, but then I'm a stick-in-the-mud :)

--
Paul Squires
paul@*********.demon.co.uk | OpenPGP Key ID: 0x423003E0
MSN: pa_squires@*******.com | ICQ: 318471677
Support the campaign against UK ID cards - www.no2id.net
-=-=-
Three out of five people aren't the other two.
Message no. 12
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:45:15 -0300
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:58:56 +0100, Paul Squires
<paul@*********.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Wouldn't this be pretty similar to the existing datajack control
> mechanism. I'm not sure what the actual effect is intended to be, and
> I'm slightly sceptical about it, but then I'm a stick-in-the-mud :)

Something I've seen before, as a house rule, was having the VCR
actually installed in the vehicle, instead of in the rigger. It
doesn't cost Essence, but it's only good for the vehicle it's
installed in. I don't know if that's how it's going to be handled in
SR4, but it would be a way to make rigging in general more accessible
while leaving the "old timers" with an edge - the ability to use the
same rig in any appropriate vehicle.


--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
Message no. 13
From: dhyde79@*********.net (Derek Hyde)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:49:50 -0600
> Something I've seen before, as a house rule, was having the VCR
> actually installed in the vehicle, instead of in the rigger. It
> doesn't cost Essence, but it's only good for the vehicle it's
> installed in. I don't know if that's how it's going to be handled in
> SR4, but it would be a way to make rigging in general more accessible
> while leaving the "old timers" with an edge - the ability to use the
> same rig in any appropriate vehicle.
>
A way that I could possibly see doing it is a "simsense interface
controller"

Make it the equivalent of a cranial deck and opt that the rigging ability
comes from a piece of software loaded to the rig perhaps...that way the
riggers and deckers both have the same equipment, but, without the
specialized software to satisfy their individual roles, it's just a brain
implanted computer
Message no. 14
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 01:58:47 +0200
On Mar 31, 2005, at 22:49, Derek Hyde wrote:

> Make it the equivalent of a cranial deck and opt that the rigging
> ability
> comes from a piece of software loaded to the rig perhaps...that way the
> riggers and deckers both have the same equipment, but, without the
> specialized software to satisfy their individual roles, it's just a
> brain
> implanted computer

The problem with this is that a VCR is the exact opposite of a
computer (or to be more precise, the exact opposite of an encephalon).
It doesn't help your brain in any way; rather, it highjacks your lower
brain's massively-parallel supercomputer capabilities to drive a
vehicle. Which results in a degree of control and intuitiveness
non-riggers can only dream about.

-- 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. 15
From: mc23@**********.com (MC23)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 08:38:34 -0500
On Mar 30, 2005, at 1:35 AM, Owen McKerrow wrote:

> Q. Will there be rules for converting characters from SR3 to SR4?
> A. Yes, we will publish a conversion guide on the website (not in the
> core rulebook).

With the more I hear about this the less I like it. Now I won't even
spend money on the rulebook, I'll just check out the conversions to see
what the new rules are. Of course with them playing around with the
background (so much for source material still being valid) I don't see
where this is the same game.

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

"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
Message no. 16
From: anders@**********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 07:37:38 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: "MC23" <mc23@**********.com>
To: "Shadowrun Discussion" <shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com>
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 5:38 AM
Subject: Re: SR4 FAQ Part 2


>
[snip]
>
> With the more I hear about this the less I like it. Now I won't even
> spend money on the rulebook,
[snip]

You know, I read posts like this every fraggin time somebody revises a major
game. Why not wait until it comes out in the stores, look at a copy there,
and then decide? Myself, I'll probably buy several, one for me and a coupla
to keep the local campaign going.

--Anders
Message no. 17
From: pentaj2@********.edu (John C. Penta)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:28:41 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Anders Swenson <anders@**********.com>
Date: Friday, April 1, 2005 10:37 am
Subject: Re: SR4 FAQ Part 2

> You know, I read posts like this every fraggin time somebody
> revises a major
> game. Why not wait until it comes out in the stores, look at a
> copy there,
> and then decide? Myself, I'll probably buy several, one for me
> and a coupla
> to keep the local campaign going.

Lots of stores shrinkwrap stuff, which prevents that.
Message no. 18
From: l-hansen@*****.tele.dk (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 18:31:16 +0200
From: "John C. Penta" <pentaj2@********.edu>
> From: Anders Swenson <anders@**********.com>
>> You know, I read posts like this every fraggin time somebody
>> revises a major
>> game. Why not wait until it comes out in the stores, look at a
>> copy there,
>> and then decide? Myself, I'll probably buy several, one for me
>> and a coupla
>> to keep the local campaign going.
>
> Lots of stores shrinkwrap stuff, which prevents that.

The store where I buy most of my games shrinkwrap all of their books, but
also leaves a single copy unwrapped, which can be looked through. Usually
they even mark this copy as a "Read Through".

Lars
Message no. 19
From: justin@***********.net (Justin Bell)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:32:07 -0500
John C. Penta wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Anders Swenson <anders@**********.com>
> Date: Friday, April 1, 2005 10:37 am
> Subject: Re: SR4 FAQ Part 2
>
>
>>You know, I read posts like this every fraggin time somebody
>>revises a major
>>game. Why not wait until it comes out in the stores, look at a
>>copy there,
>>and then decide? Myself, I'll probably buy several, one for me
>>and a coupla
>>to keep the local campaign going.
>
>
> Lots of stores shrinkwrap stuff, which prevents that.

Store shrinkwrapping a gaming book. Now that would mean not shopping at
that store...
Message no. 20
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 08:35:56 -0800 (PST)
> You know, I read posts like this every fraggin time somebody
> revises a major
> game. Why not wait until it comes out in the stores, look at a copy
> there,
> and then decide? Myself, I'll probably buy several, one for me and
> a coupla
> to keep the local campaign going.

I have noticed a trend on mailing lists, but rarely more glaring than
in this thread. Why is it that us old curmudgeons are the bad guys
for bewailing what could well be a Bad Thing (TM) for our favorite
game, while those touting the potential positive aspects of the
change are the good guys? No on, for or against, can say empirically
what the new edition will be like, whether it will be good or bad.
Those of us against the idea, specifically or on general principle,
are attacking the idea. Those of us for the new edition, however,
seem prone to attack any critical posts. This tempts me to post a
great big "Frag off!" It is not really open-mindedness if you only
respect opinions akin to your own. I do not like the idea of a 4th
Edition, any more than I did 3rd. I have a lot of reasons for this,
not the least of which is financial. I am getting sick of filling
rows of shelves with books only to stop using them after 4 or 5
years. Say what you want about source material remaining usable, I
have the Seattle Sourcebook and New Seattle side by side on my
bookshelf. I also have Target: UCAS sitting beside Shadows of North
America, just down the row from Neo-Anarchist's Guide to North
America and California Free State. All this is held upright by a
tipped over Denver Boxed Set. The source books will get updated and
rendered obsolete in time, just like the rule books. And us die hard
fans of the game will pony up another $200-$300 investment in our
beloved past time. Forgive us if we complain a bit along the way to
draining our bank accounts. We are venting. In the end, the new
edition will probably be fine. It might suck. Those of you in favor
of the new edition may be just as wrong as you feel those of us
against the new edition are. Let us vent. Post your praise, we'll
post our gripes. But stop jumping on our posts. This is nothing
like the furor over D&D3E... this thread is about a GOOD game.
*evil grin*

======Korishinzo
--glaring at the assemblage and brandishing a box of NERPS (TM)



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.
http://personals.yahoo.com
Message no. 21
From: adam@************.com (Adam Jury)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:38:39 -0700
On 1-Apr-05, at 9:28 AM, John C. Penta wrote:

> Lots of stores shrinkwrap stuff, which prevents that.

We'll be releasing a variety of preview material before the book's
release ... and given that people will be posting their opinions of the
new book within hours of release, the only way you'll have to make your
purchasing decision in a vacuum is if you choose to.

Cheers,
Adam
--
Adam Jury
http://www.shadowrunrpg.com
Message no. 22
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 19:15:17 +0200
According to John C. Penta, on 01-04-2005 18:28 the word on the street
was...

> Lots of stores shrinkwrap stuff, which prevents that.

So generate some traffic on the list... "Hey everybody, how does SR4
differ from SR1/2/3?"

--
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. 23
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 19:19:51 +0200
According to Ice Heart, on 01-04-2005 18:35 the word on the street was...

> I have noticed a trend on mailing lists, but rarely more glaring than
> in this thread. Why is it that us old curmudgeons are the bad guys
> for bewailing what could well be a Bad Thing (TM) for our favorite
> game, while those touting the potential positive aspects of the
> change are the good guys?

I don't see where Anders was making out anyone to be the good or the bad
guys. I have to say I agree with his basic idea, though: why not wait
until you can actually see the new rules to make up your mind about
them? Better yet, play a few games with them before deciding -- I know I
will before I can really decide if I like the new rules or not.

> No on, for or against, can say empirically
> what the new edition will be like, whether it will be good or bad.

Exactly. You'll know once you've read them and played with them, IMO.

--
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. 24
From: jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:20:59 -0800 (PST)
> It is not really
> open-mindedness if you only
> respect opinions akin to your own. I do not like

Could you tell me when one fails to respect an
opinion? From your post it seems that
holding/expressing a different one seems to entail the
act of "disrespecting it".

cheers,

Jan Jaap



__________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
Message no. 25
From: jeremie.bouillon@****.fr (Jeremie Bouillon)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 19:27:55 +0200
Le 19:15 01/04/2005, Gurth écrivait :
>So generate some traffic on the list... "Hey everybody, how does SR4
>differ from SR1/2/3?"

How many first born do you want to leak the answer to us ? :-)

--
Jérémie. ShadowFrance : http://www.shadowfrance.net
SRGC 0.22: SR1-- SR2- SR3 h b+++(++) B-- UB+ IE+ RN LST(DsF)
LST(SrF)+>++ W+>++ dk++>+++ sh+++ ma++ ad+ ri !rk m+ gm-(+) M--(+) P-
Message no. 26
From: weberm@*******.net (Michael Weber)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:29:06 -0500
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
>According to Ice Heart, on 01-04-2005 18:35 the word on the street was...

>> I have noticed a trend on mailing lists, but rarely more glaring than
>> in this thread. Why is it that us old curmudgeons are the bad guys
>> for bewailing what could well be a Bad Thing (TM) for our favorite
>> game, while those touting the potential positive aspects of the
>> change are the good guys?
>
>I don't see where Anders was making out anyone to be the good or the bad
>guys. I have to say I agree with his basic idea, though: why not wait
>until you can actually see the new rules to make up your mind about
>them? Better yet, play a few games with them before deciding -- I know I
>will before I can really decide if I like the new rules or not.

I think it's because us old curmudgeons have seen it before and subscribe to
those five steps of a project which ends with "Blame those who initiated the
project and heap praise on the critics".
Message no. 27
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 19:33:24 +0200
According to Jeremie Bouillon, on 01-04-2005 19:27 the word on the
street was...

> How many first born do you want to leak the answer to us ? :-)

I meant when the book is released -- I'm sure there will be lots of
people who can tell you all about it once that happens :)

--
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. 28
From: shane@**************.net (Shane Mclean)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 18:50:50 +0100
So, now I've had a chance to thinka bout my earlier post, maybe I was a
little hasty. Now, I have spent a lot of time and money on Shadowrun and a
lot of it will be wasted with a new edition with different rules (all the
rules sections of the books and any of my stat-specific GM prep). This
doesn't predispose me to the new edition greatly. That said, games change
and Shadowrun does have a very rules-heavy system, so a streamlining of that
system does interest me.

The setitng change to 2070 is no problem, my games have yet to get past 2055
and I'll likely never use the advanced timeline.

I think my biggest problem is that a new rules edition will have to be very
complete from the start to allow a straight conversion of any existing
campaign, as if the basic rules cover the same scope as the first ones there
will be a lot of missing cyberware, magic, rigging and hacking options that
will require a lot of work for the GM on top of NPC conversions and learning
the rules. Also, advancing to 2070 may mean a lot of the older cyberware and
other options that are old tech in '70 may be missed out, making it harder
for old-style SR games. So it is likely the wait for supplements may put off
players and GMs who don't have time to, don't enjoy, or have trouble coming
up with rules at home. I'm a little unsure about the cyberdecks being done
away with - they are a solid part of SR for me - but until I see what it is
replaced with I'll refrain form descision.

That said, a new edtion will bring new ideas to the game and new gamers too,
which is never a bad thing. Also, it is the chance to get back to the gritty
street-level action of the earlier adventures and away from the
world-spanning metaplots. These metaplots aren't bad things for many
players, but Shadowrun has (IMHO) always been about the 1st and 2nd ed
covers - guys in an alleyway struggling and fighting for a living.

Although I will admit I am not hugely well-disposed to the idea of a new
editon I will remain open minded and will almost certainly buy it (if only
the basic rules) to see what it is like. It'll be interesting to see how it
compares in price and page count to older versions, too.

I meant to say the above earlier, but my initial reaction, coupled with
being in a hurry for work, made the above come out as "AAAARGH", which isn't
good form on a mailing list... :-(


Shane
Message no. 29
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:58:08 -0500
On Apr 1, 2005, at 12:33, Gurth wrote:

> According to Jeremie Bouillon, on 01-04-2005 19:27 the word on the
> street was...
>
>> How many first born do you want to leak the answer to us ? :-)
>
> I meant when the book is released -- I'm sure there will be lots of
> people who can tell you all about it once that happens :)
>
>
The only differences that I heard of that worries me at the moment is
the lack of a deck, and the combination of the decker (hacker) and
rigger. I will buy the book because it is Shadowrun, and I buy all the
Shadowrun books -- even France, etc. Our group will not start SR4 any
time soon, as it was bad enough converting from SR2 to SR3. I will
continue to write my computer programs that deal with SR3 decking, etc.
The other thing I will probably not enjoy is having all the new books
come out for SR4 and not be able to easily integrate back into SR3.
However, I will wait until all is revealed later this year.

--
·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑
·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯 Scott
Harrison PGP Key ID: 0x0f0b5b86
Message no. 30
From: kelvaris@***********.us (Jeff Haskell)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 09:05:40 -0900
Gurth wrote:

>
> I don't see where Anders was making out anyone to be the good or the
> bad guys. I have to say I agree with his basic idea, though: why not
> wait until you can actually see the new rules to make up your mind
> about them? Better yet, play a few games with them before deciding --
> I know I will before I can really decide if I like the new rules or not.


Shadow responded:

I think the reason is simple. Right now we have a window of time to let
the Dev's know what we do and don't want to see in a new edition. Since
they have been developing SR4 for over a year (without input from the
community I might add) the window is rapidly shrinking. If we wait and
see what comes out, it will be to late. The game will be changed for
good or ill permanetly. I wouldn't mind at least letting them know how I
feel (especially about getting rid of Riggers and Deckers and just
calling them Hackers. STOP THE MADDNESS!)
Message no. 31
From: adamj@*********.com (Adam Jury)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:07:57 -0700
On 1-Apr-05, at 10:50 AM, Shane Mclean wrote:

> So, now I've had a chance to thinka bout my earlier post, maybe I was a
> little hasty. Now, I have spent a lot of time and money on Shadowrun
> and a
> lot of it will be wasted with a new edition with different rules (all
> the
> rules sections of the books and any of my stat-specific GM prep)

Forgive me for being cranky -- it's been a long few weeks, and I'm
getting old -- but FanPro has not hired time-traveling ninjas to go
back in time and erase all the enjoyment you've had from the books
you've previously bought, nor will these time-traveling ninjas force
you at knifepoint to update your campaign to SR4 the very instant it is
released.

Cheers,
Adam
Message no. 32
From: adamj@*********.com (Adam Jury)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:11:21 -0700
On 1-Apr-05, at 11:05 AM, Jeff Haskell wrote:

> I think the reason is simple. Right now we have a window of time to
> let the Dev's know what we do and don't want to see in a new edition.
> Since they have been developing SR4 for over a year (without input
> from the community I might add)

Developers do not need to jump up and down and say "Give us input" to
get input.

Adam
Message no. 33
From: justin@***********.net (Justin Bell)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 13:16:52 -0500
Adam Jury wrote:
>
> On 1-Apr-05, at 10:50 AM, Shane Mclean wrote:
>
>> So, now I've had a chance to thinka bout my earlier post, maybe I was a
>> little hasty. Now, I have spent a lot of time and money on Shadowrun
>> and a
>> lot of it will be wasted with a new edition with different rules (all the
>> rules sections of the books and any of my stat-specific GM prep)
>
>
> Forgive me for being cranky -- it's been a long few weeks, and I'm
> getting old -- but FanPro has not hired time-traveling ninjas to go back
> in time and erase all the enjoyment you've had from the books you've
> previously bought, nor will these time-traveling ninjas force you at
> knifepoint to update your campaign to SR4 the very instant it is released.

Crap. I had already setup traps for the time travelling Ninjas in
preparation. I remembered the trashcan
Message no. 34
From: kelvaris@***********.us (Jeff Haskell)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 09:21:39 -0900
Adam Jury wrote:

>
> On 1-Apr-05, at 11:05 AM, Jeff Haskell wrote:
>
>> I think the reason is simple. Right now we have a window of time to
>> let the Dev's know what we do and don't want to see in a new edition.
>> Since they have been developing SR4 for over a year (without input
>> from the community I might add)
>
>
> Developers do not need to jump up and down and say "Give us input" to
> get input.
>
> Adam
>

Shadow responded:

I don't think so either. But a "Hey, we are thinking about developing an
SR4, if we did, what would you (DSF or ShadowrunRN) like to see go away,
or be added?

I mean we are the people who buy the books, and we do play it. I know if
I was developing a product I might think about getting input from the
people who I want buying it. I am not saying you have to do what we
suggest, but boy, it would have been nice to have at least been heard.
Instead of the "trust us we know what's best". I have enormous respect
for you Adam, and a lot of the people who are associated with FanPro. I
love the Sota books and I think you guys do have some good ideas. But
when you only hear a couple of the ideas, and the ones you hear (in my
opinion) are really lame, it shakes your faith.
Message no. 35
From: shane@**************.net (Shane Mclean)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 19:34:22 +0100
From: "Adam Jury" <adamj@*********.com>
> On 1-Apr-05, at 10:50 AM, Shane Mclean wrote:
>
> > So, now I've had a chance to thinka bout my earlier post, maybe I was a
> > little hasty. Now, I have spent a lot of time and money on Shadowrun
> > and a
> > lot of it will be wasted with a new edition with different rules (all
> > the
> > rules sections of the books and any of my stat-specific GM prep)
>
> Forgive me for being cranky -- it's been a long few weeks, and I'm
> getting old -- but FanPro has not hired time-traveling ninjas to go
> back in time and erase all the enjoyment you've had from the books
> you've previously bought, nor will these time-traveling ninjas force
> you at knifepoint to update your campaign to SR4 the very instant it is
> released.

You are quite right Adam, I know nothing can take away the fun I've had (and
will have in the futee), not force me to conver over. I was explaining both
my earlier reaction and my concerns about a new editon, not attacking
Fanpro. I apologise if I gave that impression. I'm really interested in
seeing what 4th editon has to offer and I'll certainly check it out, initial
concerns or not.

I had hoped setting the record straight over an earlier angry outburst would
be the right hting to do.

Shane
Message no. 36
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 13:41:18 -0800 (PST)
--- Jan Jaap van Poelgeest <jjvanp@*****.com> wrote:
> > It is not really
> > open-mindedness if you only
> > respect opinions akin to your own. I do not like
>
> Could you tell me when one fails to respect an
> opinion? From your post it seems that
> holding/expressing a different one seems to entail the
> act of "disrespecting it".
>

I was not taking issue with different opinions, quite the opposite,
in fact. I was pointing out the developing dynamic where those in
favor of the new edition were expressing it mostly by telling those
against a new edition to (basically) "shut up".
Thosewho have been expressing reservations about a new edition have
done so by speaking to the issue directly, raising doubts about the
desirability of new rules or criticising ideas like combining riggers
and deckers. Many of the counterpoints posted by proponents of a new
edition have amounted less to speaking out in favor of the edition
and more to blasting the nay-sayers. Accusations of stagnant
thinking and the like. Sarcastic rejoinders to swallow the criticism
until the material is actually released. And so on. Defending
something by attacking its critics is a poor debating tactic. I am
more than willing to read people's opinions about why a new edition
is a good thing, whatever their reasoning, and whether or not I agree
with their statements. I expect the same treatment of my opinions
about why it is a bad thing. On the other hand, being told in snippy
tones that it is good I don't work in education, or that I ought to
stuff my opinion until the product is out do not earn any points with
me. My original point was merely that while those against the new
edition were critical of the idea in general, many of those in favor
were more critical of anyone voicing a negative opinion for any
reason. To them, I kind of have to respond by sinking to their level
of debating tactics... and saying "bite me". *grin*

======Korishinzo
--call it my need to split hairs




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.
http://personals.yahoo.com
Message no. 37
From: jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:37:05 -0800 (PST)
[cull]

> Defending
> something by attacking its critics is a poor
> debating tactic. I am

*shrug* that's your valuation. They're still managing
to make the whole critique of the new edition veer
off-topic, thereby pre-emptively preventing any
serious suggestions from being made.

> more than willing to read people's opinions about
> why a new edition
> is a good thing, whatever their reasoning, and
> whether or not I agree
> with their statements. I expect the same treatment
> of my opinions

Ok, I might be over-reaching a bit here, but do you
expect people to read an opinion if they respect it?
That's a chicken-or-egg situation.

[snippy snip]

> My original point was merely that while those
> against the new
> edition were critical of the idea in general, many
> of those in favor
> were more critical of anyone voicing a negative
> opinion for any
> reason.

I think I understand what it is you're trying to say,
and I don't think commenting on it is going to do any
good. You simply need to output a good critique of
what you know with regards to the upcoming 4th
edition. Give some decent examples of what you don't
like. By now it seems we've definitely had:

1). Will cost me more money
2). Will make old stuff obsolete
3). Will ruin campaigns due to the timewarp
4). Will change Shadowrun too much

None of these are particularly convincing, if you ask
me, but perhaps you can think of something that would
stop the presses.

> To them, I kind of have to respond by
> sinking to their level
> of debating tactics... and saying "bite me".
> *grin*

I think I see your point, but I also believe that your
distinctions are highly artificial; this is an ongoing
discussion and only the list moderators will be
capable of deciding which responses are in fact
good/bad. Your assertions on this matter will in turn
be mere opinion.

If you want my 2 cts... I was amazed by a company
called Stardock today. They've released the Beta of an
upcoming game to their pre-release customers, thus
involving their loyal fanbase (or anyone who wants to
buy themselves in) with the beta-testing and
development process. I don't know if such a business
model is feasible with RPG's, but perhaps it's worth a
look.


cheers,

Jan Jaap




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.
http://personals.yahoo.com
Message no. 38
From: lists@*******.com (Wordman)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 22:04:30 -0500
On Apr 1, 2005, at 12:19 PM, Gurth wrote:

> why not wait until you can actually see the new rules to make up your
> mind about them?

Turns out that humans really suck at this. Only rarely does logic form
the opinion. Usually, a preconceived opinion forms the logic used to
justify it. You needn't look farther than any posting you'll see about
Terri Schiavo for countless examples.
Message no. 39
From: lists@*******.com (Wordman)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 22:07:40 -0500
On Apr 1, 2005, at 1:05 PM, Jeff Haskell wrote:
> If we wait and see what comes out, it will be to late.

If this edition is really coming out this summer, it is already too
late. They would have to be well into the layout phase by now, I would
guess.
Message no. 40
From: mc23@**********.com (MC23)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 23:31:44 -0500
On Apr 1, 2005, at 5:37 PM, Jan Jaap van Poelgeest wrote:

> 1). Will cost me more money
> 2). Will make old stuff obsolete
> 3). Will ruin campaigns due to the timewarp
> 4). Will change Shadowrun too much

My original complaint was the poor sales pitch that sounds
contradictory. That doesn't help set the stage to this product. This
wouldn't stop me from looking at the new book but sure makes me
skeptical. You can't promise too different things.

What concerns me now is not the need or use of an updated timeline. I
thought the tone of Shadowrun should be reviewed because what made the
cyberpunk genre appealing in the late 80's is not current in 2000. I
called for this a year or two ago in this forum if you care to dig.
What concerns me is what I foresee as Shadowrun becoming FanPro
Shadowrun which will be distinct from FASA Shadowrun. This has been in
the back of my mind since FASA shut its doors and it has happened to
many other properties in the past. WIth a lot of drastic and what I
would consider unnecessary changes with the new edition, this is coming
to pass. Many changes seem to be made for no real reason other that to
make Shadowrun a FanPro property. Some of these go against the long
standing Shadowrun traditions. It's not clarification, or streamlining,
or unifying in any way, but more like leaving a territorial marking on
the game system.
I have other interests that occupy my time now and I'm no longer
actively play Shadowrun (although I have been dreading a version
popping up on the X-box that would force me to buy the damn thing). I
follow Shadowrun out of an old love and sentimentality for the game. If
this new edition doesn't follow that then I am free to dismiss it as it
does nothing for me. Many of the old elements I've loved since the
first edition are being dropped, and I'm not going to embrace a flimsy
facsimile of the real thing.

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

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. 41
From: jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 00:52:13 -0800 (PST)
--- MC23 <mc23@**********.com> wrote:
> What concerns me now is not the need or use of an
> updated timeline. I
> thought the tone of Shadowrun should be reviewed
> because what made the
> cyberpunk genre appealing in the late 80's is not
> current in 2000. I

I assume Fanpro is doing just that for 4th Ed. If not,
you'll have your precious old-time Shadowrun
sputtering along just a little bit longer. You want
the line to be changed, yet retain certain core
elements you love. In that case I suggest you should
make a big effort towards becoming part of the
development team, as only they have the power to make
such decisions. Alternatively, write your own game, I
might read it if you sell it well.

> What concerns me is what I foresee as Shadowrun
> becoming FanPro
> Shadowrun which will be distinct from FASA
> Shadowrun. This has been in

Fanpro is out to make money. FASA went bust (for a
variety of reasons, I'm sure). Therefore, Fanpro
developing Shadowrun FASA-style is a bad idea if you
wish an RPG called Shadowrun to continue existing. Or
so my reasoning would go. I'm 100% sure you can argue
against this, but I think it's the most
straightforward argument to be found for not
complaining about any changes, as the alternative is
in fact a lack of Shadowrun (or yet some other company
giving the line a shot). I prefer some sense of
continuity to what could be a potentially rough ride
(imagine Fanpro going bust over SR4, then 5e being
released on schedule, as per the April 1st caper).

> standing Shadowrun traditions. It's not
> clarification, or streamlining,
> or unifying in any way, but more like leaving a
> territorial marking on
> the game system.

Well, they own the line, they can make trolls mutate
to grow tutu-like growths on their hips in SR4 if they
like. Fanpro publishes SR, investing money that they
hope to get back in order to expand the SR universe
even more. If their line development team thinks that
they've got a good vision for a game that will last us
another decade then those new trolls are absolutely
fine by me. I just don't want Shadowrun to disappear
into player-development limbo (I've seen this happen
to a TSR gaming line that I collected and loved
*tear*). Having an actual real-life company with
cashflow running through its veins churning out new
material lends an effort a certain sense of
credibility and reality...

*disappears into pseudo-Marxist funpark discussion*

> this new edition doesn't follow that then I am free
> to dismiss it as it
> does nothing for me. Many of the old elements I've
> loved since the
> first edition are being dropped, and I'm not going
> to embrace a flimsy
> facsimile of the real thing.

If we assume that Fanpro is and will be the owner of
the SR property for the foreseeable future then we'll
have to accept that they can do anything they like
with this intellectual property. If this eventually
results in alterations to the game products that you
perceive as making Shadowrun no longer equal
Shadowrun, then by all means stick to older editions
and develop your own material, or create a SR4-to-SR3
conversion table and customise new source material to
your own liking.

Whatever you do, don't sit there and give people like
me (if there are any) a reason for giving you reasons
to actually go and *do* something about the wrongs you
perceive. It's much more efficient to do it yourself,
then.

cheers,

Jan Jaap



__________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
Message no. 42
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 11:11:29 +0200
According to Adam Jury, on 01-04-2005 20:07 the word on the street was...

> Forgive me for being cranky -- it's been a long few weeks, and I'm
> getting old -- but FanPro has not hired time-traveling ninjas to go back
> in time and erase all the enjoyment you've had from the books you've
> previously bought, nor will these time-traveling ninjas force you at
> knifepoint to update your campaign to SR4 the very instant it is released.

FASA was the one that had the thugs to make sure you played their
version of the game, after all :)

--
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. 43
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 11:41:01 +0200
According to Jeff Haskell, on 01-04-2005 20:21 the word on the street was...

> I don't think so either. But a "Hey, we are thinking about developing an
> SR4, if we did, what would you (DSF or ShadowrunRN) like to see go away,
> or be added?

And you don't think that would lead to such a flood of responses that
it'd be a full-time job just keeping up with them? :)

> I mean we are the people who buy the books, and we do play it. I know if
> I was developing a product I might think about getting input from the
> people who I want buying it.

For some reason, I think that the SR4 announcement made last month has
had just that effect...

--
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. 44
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 11:45:52 +0200
According to Wordman, on 02-04-2005 05:04 the word on the street was..
.
>> why not wait until you can actually see the new rules to make up your
>> mind about them?
>
> Turns out that humans really suck at this.

I must admit, my own first thoughts on reading about SR4 were both
"Cool!" and "Damn, there goes the game..." at almost the exact same
time. However, even now that I know a bit more about it, I still haven't
made up my mind whether I'm going to actually like it or not.

> Only rarely does logic form
> the opinion. Usually, a preconceived opinion forms the logic used to
> justify it. You needn't look farther than any posting you'll see about
> Terri Schiavo for countless examples.

IMHO, the worst part about that is that I actually know who Terry
Schiavo was, even though I live a quarter of the world away...

--
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. 45
From: mc23@**********.com (MC23)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 06:31:12 -0500
On Apr 2, 2005, at 3:52 AM, Jan Jaap van Poelgeest wrote:

> I assume Fanpro is doing just that for 4th Ed. If not,
> you'll have your precious old-time Shadowrun
> sputtering along just a little bit longer. You want
> the line to be changed, yet retain certain core
> elements you love. In that case I suggest you should
> make a big effort towards becoming part of the
> development team, as only they have the power to make
> such decisions. Alternatively, write your own game, I
> might read it if you sell it well.

Aren't we being snippy. I passed on becoming a freelancer years ago
because I want to enjoy the game, not have it become a job. Just FYI
smartass.

>> What concerns me is what I foresee as Shadowrun
>> becoming FanPro
>> Shadowrun which will be distinct from FASA
>> Shadowrun. This has been in
>
> Fanpro is out to make money. FASA went bust (for a
> variety of reasons, I'm sure).

FASA regained solvency and then decided to close its doors. Shadowrun
wasn't one of their properties that was losing them money. I do like to
keep up with how the industry works.

> Therefore, Fanpro
> developing Shadowrun FASA-style is a bad idea if you
> wish an RPG called Shadowrun to continue existing.
> Or so my reasoning would go.

Pretty flawed so far. Financially you need core systems, especially
new ones to keep driving a game business. That is a given. Players will
always gripe about updating, that too is a given. Now how you go about
the update is different.

But you don't want to even address that point. In fact you keep going
off on some different rain of thought just to have an argument with me
I guess. You never bothered to address my concerns and just keep going
into some bizarre unrelated defense of the new addition or just
attacking my statements. Are You Trolling???
Hell, right now you are a big enough reason for me not to give the new
addition a chance.

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

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed,
briefed, debriefed, or numbered "
-No. 6, The Prisoner

I am MC23
Message no. 46
From: paul@*********.demon.co.uk (Paul Squires)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 13:44:45 +0100
Jeff Haskell wrote:
>
>
> Adam Jury wrote:
>
>>
>> On 1-Apr-05, at 11:05 AM, Jeff Haskell wrote:
>>
>>> I think the reason is simple. Right now we have a window of time to
>>> let the Dev's know what we do and don't want to see in a new edition.
>>> Since they have been developing SR4 for over a year (without input
>>> from the community I might add)
>>
>>
>>
>> Developers do not need to jump up and down and say "Give us input" to
>> get input.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>
> Shadow responded:
>
> I don't think so either. But a "Hey, we are thinking about developing an
> SR4, if we did, what would you (DSF or ShadowrunRN) like to see go away,
> or be added?

There's a couple of issues here. One is that the developers, writers and
team are pretty much open and /part/ of the community. Everytime there's
a thread here or at DSF someone from the team is reading it, so I'd hope
that they have a pretty good idea of what /we/ want...

I don't think that saying "we're thinking about SR4" would have been a
good idea - as things stand we've got about 6 months where things are in
the air a bit. To do that would have required input a *lot* earlier, all
the while "the community" would lose interest (think of the analogy to
the technology world where product announcements kill current sales...).

On the other hand, I'm not sure I liked the way that there was a
definate "no SR4" line, right up until the point it was announced. It
just seemed kind of wrong to me. Right now I'm in a kind of limbo - a
couple of months ago I went about buying a number of SR books (both
paper and pdf) in order to try and start a game with some friends - the
financial cost (as pointed about by Korishinzo) is just one aspect of
the "hurt" - what galls me more is that I'd finally got a handle on the
decking and rigging rules, got comfortable with everything else and
bought sourcebooks to learn more about the world. If any of the source
material is still valid that's a bonus, but try looking through
something like the SSG and imagine how much could be when the matrix no
longer exists... Essentially I am (we are) going to have to relearn an
entire game world AND rule set, the prospect of which I don't find as
appealing any more. I've stopped visiting DSF any more as, quite
frankly, I can't see the point (although I'd put money on there being
fewer threads than before - I bet I'm not the only one who feels like
that). I've not loaded any of the pdf books to read through or picked up
one of my dead-tree format books for weeks.

If when SR4 comes out I'll consider buying it - depending on the reviews
of the people here and I'll probably have a look over at DSF as well. If
I end up with a book where the rules are simpler and are going to
require a dozen extra rulebooks to actually make it work, each of which
re-introduce increased complexity, forgive me for becoming more of
sceptic...

At least in the meantime I've got WFRP2 which doesn't have any of the
same problems at all, no really... (ie, they've changed the rules and
the game world and introduced inconsistencies), but at least it's being
released and there's something concrete to discuss.

I know I've turned into a moaning old man, but at least I'm not alone :)

--
Paul Squires
paul@*********.demon.co.uk | OpenPGP Key ID: 0x423003E0
MSN: pa_squires@*******.com | ICQ: 318471677
Support the campaign against UK ID cards - www.no2id.net
-=-=-
There are 10 types of people - those who understand binary and those
that don't.
Message no. 47
From: paul@*********.demon.co.uk (Paul Squires)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 13:54:18 +0100
MC23 wrote:
> I have other interests that occupy my time now and I'm no longer
> actively play Shadowrun (although I have been dreading a version popping
> up on the X-box that would force me to buy the damn thing). I follow
> Shadowrun out of an old love and sentimentality for the game. If this
> new edition doesn't follow that then I am free to dismiss it as it does
> nothing for me. Many of the old elements I've loved since the first
> edition are being dropped, and I'm not going to embrace a flimsy
> facsimile of the real thing.
>

This actually sums up the whole thing pretty well for me. The irony is
that recently things were IMO back to "how they should be". As of
2064(ish) the metaplot had stabilised (Deus was the only real ongoing
thread), the source material had explained the world better than ever
(SSG was frelling excellent in almost every way) and the world had
become almost /real/

OK, the rules sucked in some places, but those too had got better. The
only real complaint I had about the development was the all-powerful
adept thing and the general increase in power of magic, but that's
almost inevitable.

I'm not sure what the benefits of the new version are, other than to
sell more books and to get the marketing from a product launch...

--
Paul Squires
paul@*********.demon.co.uk | OpenPGP Key ID: 0x423003E0
MSN: pa_squires@*******.com | ICQ: 318471677
Support the campaign against UK ID cards - www.no2id.net
-=-=-
Only those who attempt the absurd can achieve the impossible.
Message no. 48
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 10:32:03 -0300
On Apr 2, 2005 1:31 AM, MC23 <mc23@**********.com> wrote:
>
> What concerns me is what I foresee as Shadowrun becoming FanPro
> Shadowrun which will be distinct from FASA Shadowrun.

I taking this little out-of-context bit of text because it explains
pretty well the difference between my viewpoint and the one shared by
the more nostalgic players in this list. I have plenty of Shadowrun
books, both from SR2 and SR3. There are books from both FASA and
FanPro.

But I never cared wheter the rules and setting contained within those
books represented "FASA Shadowrun" or "FanPro Shadowrun". It's
irrelevant to me because, whenever I play the game or start imagining
things about the world, I'm taking this world and making it mine.

So, if I buy and use SR4, it will be my Shadowrun. It will have the
"feeling" I want it to have, follow the themes I want it to follow,
and play out the stories I and my group want to play.

What I care about is not wheter SR4 will be too different from SR3. I
care about wheter it will be capable of standing on its own as a good
game and setting. I can only have a proper opinion about this once I
actually see the new book, but I'm curious about the new rules.



--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
Message no. 49
From: ShadowRN@********.demon.co.uk (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 19:23:54 +0100
In article <424E61C1.1090908@******.nl>, Gurth <gurth@******.nl> writes
>FASA was the one that had the thugs to make sure you played their
>version of the game, after all :)

"All right, Billy, this is the Rules Police, and we've got you
surrounded! We know you're not applying the correct visibility
modifiers! Put the dice down slowly, and come out with your hands up!"

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 50
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 13:25:10 -0600
On Apr 2, 2005 7:32 AM, Bira <u.alberton@*****.com> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2005 1:31 AM, MC23 <mc23@**********.com> wrote:
> >
> > What concerns me is what I foresee as Shadowrun becoming FanPro
> > Shadowrun which will be distinct from FASA Shadowrun.
>
> I taking this little out-of-context bit of text because it explains
> pretty well the difference between my viewpoint and the one shared by
> the more nostalgic players in this list. I have plenty of Shadowrun
> books, both from SR2 and SR3. There are books from both FASA and
> FanPro.
>
> But I never cared wheter the rules and setting contained within those
> books represented "FASA Shadowrun" or "FanPro Shadowrun". It's
> irrelevant to me because, whenever I play the game or start imagining
> things about the world, I'm taking this world and making it mine.

Ditto that. I own almost every Shadowrun book/sourcebook. I
certainly don't use them all. Tir Tairngire is a perfect example.
I've never used it. It never fit in my world.

There are also vast sections of the rules I've never used. Decking
occured occasionally when my campaign first started, but none of my
players really wanted to play a decker, so those rules fell by the
wayside. Whenever they needed a decker they called/hired an NPC, and
I made one dice test for success.

And there are definitely things I've changed ;)
(http://tss.dumpshock.com/html/tss-13/art13-c.htm)

All that matters to me is that they get it 95% right. I can fix the
other 5% to match my view :)

--
-Graht
Message no. 51
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 11:02:40 +0200
According to Graht, on 04-04-2005 21:25 the word on the street was...

> Ditto that. I own almost every Shadowrun book/sourcebook. I
> certainly don't use them all. Tir Tairngire is a perfect example.
> I've never used it. It never fit in my world.

The good thing about location sourcebooks is that if, as a GM, you feel
they don't fit your view of the game world, you can simply not send your
players there. I'm not a big fan of Tir Tairngire, either, but in my
campaign, what's in that book is "true" -- however, since as far as I
can remember none of my games have ever involved TT, this is not a major
issue :)

--
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. 52
From: justin@***********.net (Justin Bell)
Subject: SR4 FAQ Part 2
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 19:44:53 -0500
On 4/2/2005 4:45 AM, Gurth wrote:
>
>> Only rarely does logic form the opinion. Usually, a preconceived
>> opinion forms the logic used to justify it. You needn't look farther
>> than any posting you'll see about Terri Schiavo for countless examples.
>
>
> IMHO, the worst part about that is that I actually know who Terry
> Schiavo was, even though I live a quarter of the world away...

Frankly, it's disturbing that anyone but her family and doctors know who
she is.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about SR4 FAQ Part 2, 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!