Author Topic: Shadowrun Thread  (Read 11588 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: Shadowrun Thread
« Reply #40 on: September 11, 2008, 12:45:33 PM »

Slate

  • Guest
Re: Shadowrun Thread
« Reply #41 on: September 14, 2008, 05:56:16 PM »
Quote
"3rd ed has lots of bad rules"
Paraphrased.

Quote
So I think reworking the system was really necessary.
The system definitely was not great, good or even ok.

Quote
All that being said, I really liked to PLAY shadowrun.

Completely agree in basically every way.  The most fun paper and pencil RPG sessions I've played were SR games even if they system is not up to snuff.

In fact, we played SR for 2 weeks when people in the group left early - everyone had so much fun that we are, in fact, going to keep playing SR instead of D&D in our "off main campaign" slot.

The thing is the basic system works fine and that is what I use.  The basic system is very fast and intuitive.
The basic system does not really need an overhaul.  When I describe basic system I mean...
 
Roll a million d6's and see how many 4+ you got, compare them to how many your opponent got. Repeat.

For NPCs I simply used "ratings".  Rating 5 NPCs had 5 in everyone, Rating 6's had a 6 in everything and so on.  This allowed for infinite scalability and extremely easy pre-made NPCs. A rating 4 mage is not that scary (force 4 spells are a joke), a rating 6 mage is godly.

But yes, as you added layers of complexity on top of the simple rules of the game things broke down but they do in every system.  At the heart of the d20 system is rolling 1d20, adding modifiers and checking the result - and it's a perfectly playable basic system.  It runs into the same problems with a million modifiers and so on "getting in the way" of the ease of the system for more "flavor".

For the record, I've never had problems with Magic in Shadowrun or Riggers or Street Sams or Adepts.  I find that a gentleman's agreement between GM and players has been enough to nix pretty much all problems.

Take your ambush scenario.  If you were to prepare an ambush versus your players in exactly the same way they would have been just as boned as the large convoy. Anytime a PC fires their sniper rifle and kills someone from 2 miles away I remind them that, one day, the same exact thing could happen to them.  I keep track of things like that: "Negative Karma".  Accumulate enough Negative Karma and they will catch that sniper's bullet one day.  That's exactly how the game world works.

I've only ever had problems with Deckers and I did the simplest thing I could to fix that; condense 30+ pages of decking rules into a Computer roll and static DCs vs. deck ratings - with lots of RPing and fewer rolls. Results have always been good there.  Decking is definitely the clunkiest and worst aspect of the game in terms of rules and I don't know any group that after playing for a while continues to use the base rules there.  Everything else, combat/rigging/magic are solid enough (not perfect, not great, not good but okay) so that with a few tweaks here and there with a lot of emphasis on the basic system of the game it has always worked out well enough for me.

YMWV

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Shadowrun Thread
« Reply #42 on: September 16, 2008, 02:00:28 AM »
I may have mentioned this before,

There is a game called 'Cyberspace.'  It is an ICE game (Rolemaster simplified)  and it is a straight up cyberpunk game.  The system is poor, but it is the best RPG in the cyberpunk genre.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: Shadowrun Thread
« Reply #43 on: September 16, 2008, 04:10:01 PM »
Quote
I may have mentioned this before,

There is a game called 'Cyberspace.'  It is an ICE game (Rolemaster simplified)  and it is a straight up cyberpunk game.  The system is poor, but it is the best RPG in the cyberpunk genre.

Because the setting is all kinds of awesome, right? Sounds almost like a White Wolf game.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Shadowrun Thread
« Reply #44 on: September 16, 2008, 10:24:08 PM »
Quote
I may have mentioned this before,

There is a game called 'Cyberspace.'  It is an ICE game (Rolemaster simplified)  and it is a straight up cyberpunk game.  The system is poor, but it is the best RPG in the cyberpunk genre.

Because the setting is all kinds of awesome, right? Sounds almost like a White Wolf game.

If a WW game world were well written and well conceived, yes.  More importantly If you think WW worlds are awesome you are in for a real treat.  This world will blow you out of the water(if you like cyberpunk).

ps- again is you think WW is awesome check out Savage worlds, burning wheel, shock, dogs in the vineyard, the list goes on.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: Shadowrun Thread
« Reply #45 on: September 17, 2008, 02:02:01 PM »
Quote
If a WW game world were well written and well conceived, yes.  More importantly If you think WW worlds are awesome you are in for a real treat.  This world will blow you out of the water(if you like cyberpunk).

ps- again is you think WW is awesome check out Savage worlds, burning wheel, shock, dogs in the vineyard, the list goes on.

Oh, I'm not quite a conoisseur of different systems, to be honest. WW was as close as I could get to a similar example - the system sucks, but the setting is really cool.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Shadowrun Thread
« Reply #46 on: September 20, 2008, 05:37:41 PM »
Ah, Shadowrun.  God, the world was so great, so much potencial, but the system was never quite there.  Decking was the worst, really.  I actually was fine with magic and all that, and also with the concept that combat was all about preparation and planning... you couldn't just walk in shooting or the first guy with a decent gun was going to drop you.  That part I loved.

But still, I have fond memories.

JaronK

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: Shadowrun Thread
« Reply #47 on: September 23, 2008, 02:37:49 PM »
Ah, Shadowrun.  God, the world was so great, so much potencial, but the system was never quite there.  Decking was the worst, really.  I actually was fine with magic and all that, and also with the concept that combat was all about preparation and planning... you couldn't just walk in shooting or the first guy with a decent gun was going to drop you.  That part I loved.

But still, I have fond memories.

JaronK

Well, from a modern perspective the world is really a psychogram of late 80s/early 90s US mindset :). Japanophobia, handset phones that weigh A POUND (oh were they cool), CYBERSPACE, the catchword of the computer age that never developed into anything real, and a non-existant eastern block (except for those AK98s, gotta love 'em). I find that the technological update (without knowing any details) they did in 4th was desperately necessary.

There were many good things about the play-style of the 3rd, and some bad things: The Go-in-Do-stuff-Get-out kind of playing (with a ton of planning beforehand) tended to get old after a while. Pre-written campaigns tended to have a lot of that, and for home-brew stuff that was also the easiest thing to do. But if you made an effort to get in a bit more roleplaying then it was a very good system that made for reliable scenarios. What I really liked was that you could judge very easily what your party was capable of, and how to either challenge, or even disable them, without having to cheat at all.

Brandon

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 13
Re: Shadowrun Thread
« Reply #48 on: September 23, 2008, 06:33:38 PM »
So how does Shadowrun compare with either Cyberspace or Cyberpunk 2020?  My only Shadowrun experience was the SNES video game.



Slate

  • Guest
Re: Shadowrun Thread
« Reply #49 on: September 23, 2008, 06:52:40 PM »
I like SR a lot more than Cyberpunk 2020 in just about every way - saying that saves me from typing a lot.  Can't comment on Cyberspace because I have not played it.

jcm

  • Domesticated Capuchin Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • I am information man
Re: Shadowrun Thread
« Reply #50 on: September 23, 2008, 09:16:28 PM »
The major difference was that Shadowrun had a much more optimistic world. My take on Cyberpunk was that every character was doomed from the start, and I never really got that from Shadowrun. It's almost like Call of Cthulhu vs Buffy the Vampire Slayer as far as the sort of game that leads to.

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: Shadowrun Thread
« Reply #51 on: September 23, 2008, 09:22:10 PM »
The major difference was that Shadowrun had a much more optimistic world. My take on Cyberpunk was that every character was doomed from the start, and I never really got that from Shadowrun. It's almost like Call of Cthulhu vs Buffy the Vampire Slayer as far as the sort of game that leads to.
Heh, that much is true. With a just slightly lenient GM it was more likely a character would be retired from too much cash or the offer-he-can't-refuse than killed in action. Of course, he had to survive countless assassination attempts and amushes on the way there...:)

Shaun

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 80
  • I found my pants.
    • This Modern Death
    • Email
Re: Shadowrun Thread
« Reply #52 on: October 14, 2008, 09:38:22 PM »
So if you wanted to run a game with the Shadowrun fluff, what ruleset would you choose?  Leaving aside the fact that choosing a SR edition would get you ready statted monsters etc.

If you were going to play it as an AA game as quick as posible, savage worlds.  If you wanted to sit down and work out the details  for an AA game the best toolbox would be True20/saga edition Hack.  (but if you like Spirit of the Century that would also work)

Going beyond that, the only good dramatic game on the market is Burning Wheel.  Conversion would be a big job.  Others I would only recommend if you already liked them.
I'm going to disagree with the first part of your statement. A d20 conversion of Shadowrun would be absolute crap.

On your second point, you're almost correct. Burning Wheel is about the best match you can do for Shadowrun, but some rules - like Firefight! and the Tech Burner - need to be pulled from Burning Empires.
This Modern Death - An RPG Podcast
Raptus Regaliter - My Blog

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Shadowrun Thread
« Reply #53 on: October 19, 2008, 09:14:19 PM »
I'm going to disagree with the first part of your statement. A d20 conversion of Shadowrun would be absolute crap.

On your second point, you're almost correct. Burning Wheel is about the best match you can do for Shadowrun, but some rules - like Firefight! and the Tech Burner - need to be pulled from Burning Empires.

d20 is a better rule set than shadowrun.  I agree it would be crap, but it would be significantly better than the rules of shadowrun.  And people know d20 so the learning curve would be less.

As for Burning Empires, save yourself 50 bucks and download Burning Sands: Jihad for the rules you need.  After you see how awesome it is and you want to play Burning Empires, then you get that too.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Shaun

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 80
  • I found my pants.
    • This Modern Death
    • Email
Re: Shadowrun Thread
« Reply #54 on: October 20, 2008, 03:42:54 PM »
d20 is a better rule set than shadowrun.
This is debatable.

As for Burning Empires, save yourself 50 bucks and download Burning Sands: Jihad for the rules you need.  After you see how awesome it is and you want to play Burning Empires, then you get that too.
I have both. Jihad has some really cool stuff vehicle combat rules. I'm still making through the brick that is BE, so I don't know how much of the vehicle rules got carried over. However - and keep in mind that I'm talking about using rules for a setting conversion - Jihad doesn't have the necessary tech rules to create cyber/bioware.
This Modern Death - An RPG Podcast
Raptus Regaliter - My Blog

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: Shadowrun Thread
« Reply #55 on: October 20, 2008, 05:09:30 PM »

d20 is a better rule set than shadowrun.  I agree it would be crap, but it would be significantly better than the rules of shadowrun.  And people know d20 so the learning curve would be less.

That depends. There are some things that to me are seriously Shadowrun, even though the actual rolling mechanic has serious probability problems. Take weapon damage, for instance: Name another mechanism that could give a feel similar to the Power/Damage rating of SR3 weapons. Separating power (effectively penetration) and the resulting damage (effectively calibre) is an awesome mechanism, that no other game I know can compete with so far. Of course, the rule writers didn't do it quite as good as they could have done. They had to make sure it wouldn't get clunky, didn't require too many rolls, etc.. I once wrote a 20 page revision on SR3 weapon rules, which unfortunately never got played in my groups. I still hate them for it. It WAS more clunky, but it would have also been THAT much more nerdy.

To me, SR4 loses a lot due in places to it's streamlined rolling mechanism. In other places, SR4 wins handsdown.

D20 in comparison has a very different approach: It is hard to imagine D20 without levelling. Perhaps with E6 it could work.

Shaun

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 80
  • I found my pants.
    • This Modern Death
    • Email
Re: Shadowrun Thread
« Reply #56 on: October 20, 2008, 06:55:21 PM »

d20 is a better rule set than shadowrun.  I agree it would be crap, but it would be significantly better than the rules of shadowrun.  And people know d20 so the learning curve would be less.

That depends. There are some things that to me are seriously Shadowrun, even though the actual rolling mechanic has serious probability problems. Take weapon damage, for instance: Name another mechanism that could give a feel similar to the Power/Damage rating of SR3 weapons. Separating power (effectively penetration) and the resulting damage (effectively calibre) is an awesome mechanism, that no other game I know can compete with so far. Of course, the rule writers didn't do it quite as good as they could have done. They had to make sure it wouldn't get clunky, didn't require too many rolls, etc.. I once wrote a 20 page revision on SR3 weapon rules, which unfortunately never got played in my groups. I still hate them for it. It WAS more clunky, but it would have also been THAT much more nerdy.

To me, SR4 loses a lot due in places to it's streamlined rolling mechanism. In other places, SR4 wins handsdown.

D20 in comparison has a very different approach: It is hard to imagine D20 without levelling. Perhaps with E6 it could work.
The real problem is that Shadowrun - any edition - doesn't have rules that support the game that it purports to be. It's the exact same problem that Josh, Zeke and Meg have with WoD. Shadowrun says it's supposed to be a game about being a professional criminal, and then omits any rules about actually being professional or a criminal. The system is largely agnostic toward roleplaying - a problem that it shares with d20 - and it fails to reward players for portraying the kind of characters that the setting material suggest should be inhabiting the Shadowrun world. It does, however, do a better job than  d20, because d20 has even less concern with roleplaying. d20 is all about tactical combat. It doesn't support the sort of grittiness that the Shadowrun setting implies.
This Modern Death - An RPG Podcast
Raptus Regaliter - My Blog

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: Shadowrun Thread
« Reply #57 on: October 20, 2008, 08:01:42 PM »
The real problem is that Shadowrun - any edition - doesn't have rules that support the game that it purports to be. It's the exact same problem that Josh, Zeke and Meg have with WoD. Shadowrun says it's supposed to be a game about being a professional criminal, and then omits any rules about actually being professional or a criminal. The system is largely agnostic toward roleplaying - a problem that it shares with d20 - and it fails to reward players for portraying the kind of characters that the setting material suggest should be inhabiting the Shadowrun world. It does, however, do a better job than  d20, because d20 has even less concern with roleplaying. d20 is all about tactical combat. It doesn't support the sort of grittiness that the Shadowrun setting implies.
Ah, ok, but in all honesty, I haven't yet found a game that can make rules about roleplaying, without me feeling railroaded by the game.
Take Cthulu, for instance, within the rules of the game it's supposed to make the character go insane. I don't see the necessity of that, at all. Either the player understands the necessity of the character going insane, or it's totally pointless even putting that mechanic into the game.

Isn't it enough to have a setting and rules about physical interactiosn with it and think for yourself about the roleplaying? Why should I HAVE to play a gritty professional or a criminal, when I could be playing a successful businessman, with mostly the same ruleset. (It does get a bit simple in that regard...) It's really the same with D&D. Sure the rules themselves pretty much ignore roleplaying, but there is still plenty to work with. You DO get to a point where you realize that the actual world it's portraying makes so little sense you basically HAVE TO change it, but that's generally the fault of the fluff, not the rules (which could have been better, if the fluff hadn't been there in the first place).

So in the end, how would you construct a rule that rewards the roleplaying the game wants? Or rather, how do games look that do reward roleplaying?

Shaun

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 80
  • I found my pants.
    • This Modern Death
    • Email
Re: Shadowrun Thread
« Reply #58 on: October 20, 2008, 09:04:06 PM »
Ah, ok, but in all honesty, I haven't yet found a game that can make rules about roleplaying, without me feeling railroaded by the game.
Take Cthulu, for instance, within the rules of the game it's supposed to make the character go insane. I don't see the necessity of that, at all. Either the player understands the necessity of the character going insane, or it's totally pointless even putting that mechanic into the game.

Isn't it enough to have a setting and rules about physical interactiosn with it and think for yourself about the roleplaying? Why should I HAVE to play a gritty professional or a criminal, when I could be playing a successful businessman, with mostly the same ruleset. (It does get a bit simple in that regard...) It's really the same with D&D. Sure the rules themselves pretty much ignore roleplaying, but there is still plenty to work with. You DO get to a point where you realize that the actual world it's portraying makes so little sense you basically HAVE TO change it, but that's generally the fault of the fluff, not the rules (which could have been better, if the fluff hadn't been there in the first place).

So in the end, how would you construct a rule that rewards the roleplaying the game wants? Or rather, how do games look that do reward roleplaying?
They look like Burning Wheel or Dogs in the Vineyard. In those games, and a lot of indie games, the rules and the setting are the same thing. There is absolutely zero fluff in the Burning Wheel rules. The two basic books have a page count that add up to 800 pages, without ever having any explicit setting material, because the rules already imply a setting, so there's never a conflict between the rules and the fluff. Also, there's always stuff for your character to do because your goals are spelled out on your character sheet. In fact, there is nothing on a Burning Wheel or Dogs character sheet that doesn't inform the roleplaying. In both of those games, you advance your character by acting in accordance with the roleplaying elements of your character, rather than being handed some arbitrary number of points to spend on advancement or working up to another level.
This Modern Death - An RPG Podcast
Raptus Regaliter - My Blog

fil kearney

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 210
    • KILLFEAR.COM
    • Email
Re: Shadowrun Thread
« Reply #59 on: October 20, 2008, 09:20:29 PM »
I've never understood why decking and rigging were different... if merged, that would basically boil the archetypes to casters, sammies, and deckers.... decent spread with a bit of difference in flavor between casters (shaman, mages, adepts) sammies (tank, infiltrator, speedster) and deckers (hacking, rigging, or wishfully; both to an extent)

I'm heavily biased towards d20; but levels don't seem right for SR.  I LIKE the d20 mechanic of d20+x, but that doesn't solve the class level issue. :/