Thinking of running a Shadowrun game... any advice for me?

[The Crimson Binome]

It's not that I find playing Shadowrun to be too complicated. I find it to be needlessly complicated. For my money, the complications do not add anything of value to the game.

The rules of the game are important for setting tone. Shadowrun is a process-simulation, and doesn't lend itself nearly as well to cinematic action as the premise might lead you to believe. Actions, and their outcomes, are much less abstract than in some other games. The type of ammo you use is important, not because it's an interesting detail that makes for a better story, but because there's a good chance that it would change the outcome of your attack. If it's something that your character might think of in-game, then it's an option that you have as a player.

It's definitely not for everyone, though. If you're used to playing Exalted, where crazy stunts are rewarded with huge bonuses that help you succeed against all odds, then the Shadowrun ruleset is going to feel disappointing. If you try to do some crazy stunt in Shadowrun, then you're probably just going to die.

I think it's telling that the rules for that particular subsystem are so opaque that many (most?) people choose to ignore them.

It was never the complexity of the rules that were the problem. It was certainly a lot more rules, but you could figure them out easily enough if you tried. The issue with decking, in particular, is that it took a lot of time to actually run, and that was time where the magician and street samurai couldn't contribute in any way.

​

 

[Nimblegrund]

In any and all previous editions, I'd also recommend that you keep Deckers as NPCs. In 5th Edition, however, they now play support roles in combats, without needing to be off in a separate computer reality - they get to screw around with the ubiquitous wireless technology around them. Matrix runs still happen, but they are much, much reduced in scope.

I think that's a pretty glowing recommendation for 5th edition. It seems kind of blasphemous to relegate decking to NPCs when the game's basic concept is "Fantasy + Cyberpunk."

As for campaigns, I had a lot of fun with Ghost Cartels. It's well written, and lets the PC's go on a sort of Shadowrun World Tour. Like everything Shadowrun though it'll be important to rejigger the balance to suit your players. There is a particularly nasty fight in Hong Kong if the team doesn't have a pretty considerable magical arsenal.

Good to know, and thanks for the recommendation!

I feel much the same way you do Nimblegrund. I'm playing in a 4th ed Shadowrun game right now and I can tell you without hesitation that, as much as I love the setting, I would never run the game due to the needlessly complicated rules.

When I GM Shadowrun, and I will because I absolutely love the setting, it will be done using another rule set. The most likely candidate for me is Savage Worlds. By adding a couple of edges and skills I could maintain 100% of what I like about the game and get rid of all the rest.

- Ryan

If going the Savage Worlds route... would Interface Zero be a good candidate rule-wise to emulate Shadowrun?

I am already pretty familiar with SW so it would be a lot easier on me. I would have two players in the group that really like delving into the mechanical aspects of games and coming up with unique combinations of abilities, that I think would probably like the complexity that SR has to offer, and I might be robbing them of that somewhat by going with SW. BOTOH, it could save me a heckufa lotta work and rules checking/explanation at the table.

I have not looked at Interface Zero myself either, and now I am curious...

You all make it sound like playing the game is some sort of rocket science.
Shadowrun isn't that complicated.

For resources, try the Chummer PC app. Its a fan written character creator for 4E shadowrun and quite handy.

How much experience do you have with different systems? How old are you, and how long have you been playing games?

The rules have only gotten less complicated, as the editions have gone by, and we were able to (mostly) figure out the rules for 2E while we were in middle school. I feel like you probably could figure out the rules, if you sat down and really tried. And it would almost certainly be easier to do that than to figure out how to convert everything from the setting into a generic system.

Well, Chummer is a great resource for players, but for GM's, eh...

And it's not like I am banging rocks together over here. In the past I have owned various editions of the Shadowrun core book and have always felt the same enthusiasm for the setting and the same apprehension over the rule set.

 

[Rubik_the_Cube]

The rules of the game are important for setting tone. Shadowrun is a process-simulation, and doesn't lend itself nearly as well to cinematic action as the premise might lead you to believe. Actions, and their outcomes, are much less abstract than in some other games. The type of ammo you use is important, not because it's an interesting detail that makes for a better story, but because there's a good chance that it would change the outcome of your attack.

While I agree that Shadowrun is a process-simulation, that is a product of the rules, not the setting. Nothing about the setting of Shadowrun demands that it be played with a process-simulation rule set. When I read the story excerpts in the rule book, I could see myself reproducing them in gameplay using Savage Worlds. So far, the stories that have come out of our game have had nothing to do with selecting exactly the right type of weapon or ammo nor have they had anything to do with what OS our comm links are running, whether our cyberware is new or second-hand, or what attachments are weapons have. And regarding ammo specifically, I agree that the type of ammo plays an important role, I just don't think it's important enough to justify the way overly detailed it's implemented. I could model that with trappings in Savage Worlds and get the same effect with almost none of the overhead. Buy ammo, choose trapping, done.

If it's something that your character might think of in-game, then it's an option that you have as a player.

Savage Worlds is flexible enough to allow for the same player options you have in the Shadowrun rules without explicitly spelling them all out using various disconnected subsystems.

I want to point out that I'm not trying to come across as someone who believes Savage Worlds is the best system to run any game or setting. I certainly prefer other games for certain genres. I enjoy D&D 4e to get my fantasy fix, for example. I don't even have an issue playing in a Shadowrun game and am enjoying the one I'm in right now in spite of the rules. What I am saying is that I would never choose to GM a game using this rule set, that the setting of Shadowrun can be enjoyed independent of the rule set, and that if I were to run a Shadowrun game I would take the setting and use Savage Worlds for the rules.

It's definitely not for everyone, though. If you're used to playing Exalted, where crazy stunts are rewarded with huge bonuses that help you succeed against all odds, then the Shadowrun ruleset is going to feel disappointing. If you try to do some crazy stunt in Shadowrun, then you're probably just going to die.

I don't know what Exalted is, but I agree about stunts in Shadowrun. The game encourages you to play smart and cautious unless you just absolutely outclass your enemies and can end them before backup arrives.

It was never the complexity of the rules that were the problem. It was certainly a lot more rules, but you could figure them out easily enough if you tried. The issue with decking, in particular, is that it took a lot of time to actually run, and that was time where the magician and street samurai couldn't contribute in any way.

​

I defer to your experience as PC deckers are not allowed by my GM. I assumed it was because the rules were complicated, but if it is because the rules create a separate mini-game where only the decker can participate I stand corrected.

- RtC

 

[Rubik_the_Cube]

I just had a neat thought. Riggers could be played as SW Weird Scientists. You invest your power points in creating gadgets, in this case drones, which then do your work for you. The main difference is that Weird Science gadgets play off the PCs skill and do not have their own. I view that as a positive since it's one less thing to track (more, if you have more drones), but some could see it as a detriment if they wanted to utilize drones specifically because they would have different skills than the rigger.

- RtC

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't know what Exalted is, but I agree about stunts in Shadowrun. The game encourages you to play smart and cautious unless you just absolutely outclass your enemies and can end them before backup arrives.

Exalted is a game from White Wolf, where you play as fantasy-style super-hero-ish demi-gods. It is known for its high-fantasy, highly-cinematic action. It's not too hard to create a character who can pick up the local equivalent of an elephant and hurl it into the local equivalent of space, or a character who can climb the highest mountain and use that vantage point to shoot literally anyone who is outdoors (since the world is flat).

If you describe your action cinematically, so that the GM thinks it would be really cool for you to succeed, then you get bonus dice that help you succeed. Crazy stunts are rewarded. In case of a tie, the winner is the one attempting the more outrageous stunt.

Savage Worlds is flexible enough to allow for the same player options you have in the Shadowrun rules without explicitly spelling them all out using various disconnected subsystems.

I'm not sure how that can logically be the case. The Shadowrun player has the choice of spending more money for AP or explosive rounds, or conserving money by sticking with regular bullets (so you can save up for new cyberware, or a better gun). I don't see how that's still an option if you're not modelling the difference between the various guns and ammo.

 

[Rubik_the_Cube]

I'm not sure how that can logically be the case. The Shadowrun player has the choice of spending more money for AP or explosive rounds, or conserving money by sticking with regular bullets (so you can save up for new cyberware, or a better gun). I don't see how that's still an option if you're not modelling the difference between the various guns and ammo.

The differences in the guns are trivial. What they add to gameplay is not worth the amount of text it takes to explain what each mod does. The differences between ammo is less trivial, but still not worth reading and remembering the mods of each particular type of ammo. I think it's possible to have the same options available and model the differences between ammo types using trappings because, in my opinion, the least important difference between ammo types is their cost. I'll explain why below*, but since I feel that the cost is negligible the only thing that matters to me regarding ammo types is what they do. So when you buy ammo, just make a note that says it is armor piercing, gel rounds, explosive rounds, etc. Do that, spend an action to change magazines when we're in combat and you need a different ammo type, and we're all good from this GM's perspective.

*My experience with ammo cost has been this: after one run I had enough money to buy 90 rounds of APDS, explosive, and gel ammo for my primary weapon with some left over to start saving for cyber upgrades. During that run I used around 60 rounds of regular ammo because fights are extremely deadly and short (our longest lasted one and two-thirds rounds). I still have 190 regular rounds left over from my starting purchases. So when we go in somewhere expecting a fight I now have two mags regular and three special mags to choose from. The rest of the ammo is in the van.

My point is that the choice of where to spend your money is not real choice after your initial character purchases and then only because your limited by the availability of certain ammo types. After you start getting jobs there is no downside to purchasing whatever ammo you need because the cost is trivial compared to what you are paid for jobs and compared to what other items cost, particularly cyberware/bioware.

**Now we each made $5k on our first run, which seemed reasonable but maybe it's out of line. I also had the group's face do the negotiation rolls to buy the ammo during our downtime and all the purchases were by the book. If $5k/each for a run is way too much money or if most groups don't have a face then that could change what is available to purchase.

-RtC

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think it's possible to have the same options available and model the differences between ammo types using trappings because, in my opinion, the least important difference between ammo types is their cost.

What is "trappings" in this context? It's not a term I'm familiar with, from any other game.

 

[innerdude]

If going the Savage Worlds route... would Interface Zero be a good candidate rule-wise to emulate Shadowrun?

Interface Zero 2.0 is one of my Top 3 All Time Favorite RPG books. I cannot tell you how awesome this source book is.

I don't know enough about Shadowrun's decking / hacking rules to say if it captures the same flavor very well, but I really like what it does on its own. It establishes its own network (the Tendril Access Processor), and bases rules around it.

 

[Rubik_the_Cube]

What is "trappings" in this context? It's not a term I'm familiar with, from any other game.

Trappings are what the Savage Worlds system uses to differentiate spells. Spells are given in the book as purely mechanical entities. The book tells you what a spell does but it's up to the player to decide how it does that.

For example, there is a spell in the game called "Burst". The book will tell you that burst costs x number of power points, has y range, and does n damage. The player will determine, when they select the power, that this burst, their burst, is a fireball that ignites the air around it. Or maybe their burst is a noxious cloud of gas, or a piercing shriek emanating from the origin point. Regardless of the trappings, the mechanics of the spell are the same.

That's the book answer, but many groups also apply trappings to other elements of the game. Skills are a good example. If I'm playing as a wizard, there is no equivalent to the knock spell. However, I can take ranks in the lockpick skill and use the idea of trappings to say that my lockpicking is a result of magically manipulating the lock rather than using the tools of the trade.

As I've described, trappings are almost always purely cosmetic and do not affect the mechanics of the game. I would make an exception for ammo in this case and apply modifiers based on the trappings applied to the ammo. APDS would ignore a certain amount of armor, for example. I think there is enough wiggle room in the rules to allow for that exception without breaking the combat.

 

[Umbran]

Saelorn and Umbran,

My GM is also running the game such that all deckers are NPCs. I think it's telling that the rules for that particular subsystem are so opaque that many (most?) people choose to ignore them.

I don't pass on them because the rules are opaque. I pass on them in earlier editions because the work almost exclusively in the Matrix. Running with a PC decker was basica)y running two games in parallel - one for the decker, and one for everyone else.

They fixed this in 5th edition, so my current game has a decker.