Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: SR Books Online
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:53:39 -0500 (EST)
Starrngr@***.com writes:
> In a message dated 99-02-16 05:41:38 EST, you write:
> > BTW, if Shadowbeat is made out to be the "holy grail" so often on this

> > list, how come it only got rated 6.9 in the survey? :)

I've noticed that Shadowbeat is one of those love/hate books.
Some people think it's the holy grail, and others think it's a pretty
silly book. I've talked with people who have read it over the years,
and a surprising number see it just as the rocker/reporter PC book,
kind of like the SSC is the Street Samurai Book, VR is the Decker
book, RBB is the Rigger book, and Grimoire is the Magician book.
(And, unfortunately, some of them think that the idea of a rocker PC
is really stupid. :( It's a real PITA when half the party doesn't like
you because their players don't like your character, not because the
characters don't.)
I've never run into a GM that hasn't liked the book though... :)

> Probobly because so few of us have it. I for one, am surprised at just how
> many questions I have had have been refered to text in Shadowbeat.
> I mean, it
> really sounds like it should have been the hot product, since it covered so
> much of the incidentals that make a setting real...

That's the thing, it covers the incidentals. It doesn't give
you new toys to make your characters more powerful, it isn't a holy
grail module like UB, or have anything else to give it widespread
appeal. On top of all that, it's a sourcebook that the GM is more
than happy to let the players go through (no sensitive information, or
toys that are off-limits), so a lot of players have seen it.

> the little things, like
> how much does your music chip hold, what are professional sports like in 20x,
> etc.

> Personally, I'm surprised it got such a low rating too.

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.