Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: lists@*******.com (Wordman)
Subject: Timeline speed
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 22:49:59 -0500
On Apr 1, 2005, at 8:14 PM, Matthew Bond wrote:

> Is the Denver of 2065 covered by the Denver Boxed set? Nope, lots of
> that is already superceded by post-Comet changes. Is Chicago of 2065
> covered by Bug City? not really... And 2065 is current SR3. Lots of
> your
> sourcebooks are already out of date...

I just realized that this is the other reason I am no longer as
enthusiastic about Shadowrun as I once was. While I understand the
reasoning behind the "one year in real life (usually) equals one year
in the SR timeline" development strategy used over most of SR's life,
in retrospect it seems to me that it was a colossal error.

I think the game would have been better served by a slower advancement
of the timeline, where the types of books released to keep the game
"new and fresh" would be targeted at making the scope of the world
within that year deeper and wider, rather than making the SOTA of the
new year the focus. The depth of SR's world has always been its
greatest strength and could have been capitalized on more strongly. The
current system tends to leave little time to absorb and incorporate new
ideas introduced by canon books before the canon is off doing something
else.

Dunklezahn's will, for example, opened up a vast array of campaign
possibilities. I had barely began to even wrap my head around most of
the possibilities when the Ghostwalker stuff came out. I've been in
campaigns where a year of real time represents only a couple months of
game time and I suspect a lot of others have, too.

My guess is that very few people on this list play in the current canon
time frame unless they just started playing. I know that many choose to
play in pre-canon times, just because they liked the ideas in that time
better. The last campaign I was running was based around Mob War, for
example. I would have happily waited an extra year for the books that
came out following Mob War if it meant that I could have gotten, say, a
Mob War-era Japan Sourcebook or a book about how the FBI and similar
organizations dealt with the Mob War, etc.

FASA had a tendency towards pushing their timelines out of reach of
their players, to the detriment of their games. This absolutely
destroyed Battletech, for example. The release of SR4 gives FanPro a
good opportunity to change the strategy of their timeline. I hope they
take it.
Message no. 2
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Timeline speed
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 11:55:47 +0200
According to Wordman, on 02-04-2005 05:49 the word on the street was...

> My guess is that very few people on this list play in the current canon
> time frame unless they just started playing. I know that many choose to
> play in pre-canon times, just because they liked the ideas in that time
> better.

My own reason for doing just that is because that way, you can see
important changes coming without having to try and fit them into your
game after the fact. For example, if you start a campaign now and set it
in 2061, you already know the effects the comet will have -- but if four
years ago you played a game set in 2061 in Denver, you may suddenly have
found yourself going "A dragon did WHAT last week?! There goes my
continuity..."

--
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

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Timeline speed, 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.