D&D 4E OT: Shadowrun 4E announced

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Hear, hear, for Felon!

 

[Geron Raveneye]

OK, rather than saying you are talking about neither system nor setting, do you mean to say you're talking about both. What are "rules and background" if not synonymous terms for "system and setting"?

Nothing but synonyms...just those I prefer.

True, as has been estabilished earlier in this thread, a d20 Shadowrun would be different from what people are used to. Of course, a d20 SR would be targeted at those who aren't used to it.

It would take the the SR setting--its major locales and personalities, the major themes behind adventuring, the challenges and objectives--and apply the conventions of the d20 system. Character generation and combat would play out differently than in the FASA/FanPro systems, and if character generation and combat represents the sum total of what SR amounts to for some players, then I guess I can see where they think that selling Shadowrun under the d20 banner is an oxymoron of sorts--as would playing pretty much any setting under anything other than its original system.

Well, no, of course it's not just character creation and combat...SR is as complex or as simple as any other RPG. The difference lies in how the resolution system shapes the outcome of any attempt to beat a challenge, and how the expectations of the players are for the success of their characters based on their experience with that resolution system. Among other things. The way the rules represent in-game reality and events will shape the players' expectations and perceptions of that reality and those events. And, in my opinion, that's part of what makes a game's special flavour, and it depends on the interaction of system and setting...rules and background.

Sure, which is why subjective opinions don't merit consideration. I mean, if your attitude towards the premise of d20 SR is "what's the point?", then I kind of have to figure you realize that the point (or lack thereof) has to do with offering SR to an untapped venue of gamers, not to you personally. If you believe it would fail to appeal to a significant number of gamers, then by all means explain why. But if you believe it might sell a thousand or two copies, well, there's the point.

Oh, I'm not denying the point...I'm simply surprised. See, the thing is, reading a few comments like that of our esteemed Henry...I wonder if I shouldn't feel like an arrogant ass over the fact that I believe every roleplayer with a little experience is able to grasp any roleplaying game's basic rules structure within a session or two . I certainly know it's the case with those players I GM for, and we alternate between 3 different systems, namely DSA, L5R d10 and SR 1E (houserules for each are taken for granted now ). I'm sure, if I threw in Call of Cthulhu, or Ars Magica, they'd get the rules relatively easy. The most problems we have with keeping a grip on them stem from us not playing more than once or twice a month, if that.
So, to me, the point that, to play Shadowrun, people would "need" a d20 version, is simply a point that is...a bit big to swallow, lets say it like that. That's where my "Why bother with a d20fied version of everything" attitude originates from.
And now I'm confused if that's gamer snobism, or just naive .

 

[Felon]

Also, ripping the background from the system and putting in the d20 mechanics and a new system based around that would probably result in a rather sterile game. The SR mechanics are (almost ) as much part of the game as the background.

Please elaborate. What specific mechanics can't be replaced with other mechanics without rendering the game as a whole moot?

It's one big whole, not two seperate parts, but a d20ified version would just be two different parts glued together. At least I would see it like that.

You could be right. It'd be a matter of how much quality went into the project. Like anything else.

It's similar to a game like Deadlands d20. There was really absolutely no point in doing Deadlands d20 (except hoping for money from the d20 crowd, that is - a good enough reason, of course ).

Well, if you're running a business like a business rather than a hobby, then yes money is a major motivator. Deadlands was not a bad idea, it was just a limp effort. Of course, I'm pretty sure it preceded D20 Modern, which would've been a big help in providing a framework (and D20 Past even moreso). And some sidebar optional rules for carrying over the playing-card elements for initiative would have been a nice touch, and not terribly complicated. But if you judge all setting conversions by the poorest examples, then obviously your opinion's ultimately going to be negative.

 

[Saeviomagy]

But if you judge all setting conversions by the poorest examples, then obviously your opinion's ultimately going to be negative.

Personally I felt that d20 cthulu was far different to the original, to it's detriment. And I don't even like the BRP system...

 

[Saeviomagy]

Yep.

When we played, the GM and decker player* eventually just used opposed rolls to get most of the decking done.

Yeah, I DO run guys through proper matrix interactions, but I tend to have to intersperse other people's legwork phase to avoid the group getting bored.

And I end up ditching most of the matrix rules anyway for something more free-flowing. They end up very similar to the rules for real-world combat...

Also, the GM and rigger player signed an "anti-MIJI" accord, as they came to the conclusion that the EW rules were just plain too much to bother with.

Believe it or not, I don't think the MIJI rules are actually all that complex - the write up is bad is all. Fundamentally, it's "roll electronics warfare skill, oppose with (something), fill in condition monitor". If there was a table that told you the appropriate somethings, it'd be a breeze.

Mind you, it'd be a lot better if they had "roll EW, damage based on X, target signal has a stat that's body, armour is Y". You know, like the rest of the combat system...

Besides - MIJI becomes totally moot once someone has an encryption of 5+. It's almost impossible to crack.

 

[Felon]

Well, no, of course it's not just character creation and combat...SR is as complex or as simple as any other RPG. The difference lies in how the resolution system shapes the outcome of any attempt to beat a challenge, and how the expectations of the players are for the success of their characters based on their experience with that resolution system. Among other things. The way the rules represent in-game reality and events will shape the players' expectations and perceptions of that reality and those events. And, in my opinion, that's part of what makes a game's special flavour, and it depends on the interaction of system and setting...rules and background.

That's a reasonable assessment, but you can tweak d20's resolution system to make it easier or more challenging without replicating specific mechanics from the FASA/FanPro system. For instance, if you want characters to be afraid of being taken out by a single gunshot, the tools are there, with the massive damage threshold being the big one.

The most problems we have with keeping a grip on them stem from us not playing more than once or twice a month, if that.

Same problem here. And while everyone in my group might be able to grasp the basics of a new system, they just don't care to face the prospect of doing so. And it only takes one or two flawed rules to sour them on the learning curve. A D20 version might have some new rules for spellcasting with Spellcraft checks, but they'd already have foothold on the system in general, and that beats the heck out of hearing "OK, how do you make a character again?" from someone every session.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Yeah, I DO run guys through proper matrix interactions, but I tend to have to intersperse other people's legwork phase to avoid the group getting bored.

And I end up ditching most of the matrix rules anyway for something more free-flowing. They end up very similar to the rules for real-world combat...

I play in chat rooms online, so it wasn't horrible running a deckers run in IM, while the main group did other things.

I think the Otaku ACIFS system was a lot easier than the 8billion programs thing also.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Once you try to apply d20 to Shadowrun, they are no longer well-polished rules. Since you have to rewrite a lot of the d20 rules to properly capture the mood, you essentially end up with an untested system. And those are rarely well-polished.

The "standard" Shadowrun rules have existed for 16 years in one incarnation or another, so it would be easier to build on those than to rebuild d20 from scratch if you want to end up with something well-polished...

The reason I joined the tangent discussion was mostly because folks seem to think SRd20 should replace SR3. But, the thing is, SR4 is coming. The system is changing.
You're still taking an established system and modifying it. (and no, I'm not saying it's the same thing, just making the point)

But really, totally changing Deckers ruins what Deckers were. Blending them into the rest of the world just loses their distinctiveness IMO. But then, I won't be getting SR4 anyway, so it doesn't matter.

 

[Umbran]

But really, totally changing Deckers ruins what Deckers were. Blending them into the rest of the world just loses their distinctiveness IMO. .

I haven't seen how they plan to do it, but I am not sure I agree with you. Or, if they do lose some of their distinctiveness, it may still be to the game's benefit.

The main problem with deckers was simple - they operate off in their own little uinverse, havign little contact with the rest of the party. Working with a decker generally forced the GM to run a little side adventure for that one player's benefit. While occasionally splitting the party up can be okay, having it be the only way to do your shtick is horrid. If that's what you think makes a decker cool and distinctive, well, you are accepting his cool at the expense of the rest of the party. It isn't fair to the rest of them, unless the whole party is made of deckers.

So, if they can figure a nice way to eliminate tht particular issue and keep much of the decker's flavor, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

...then I kinda have to figure you realize that the point (or lack thereof) has to do with offering SR to an untapped venue of gamers, not to you personally. If you believe it would fail to appeal to a significant number of gamers, then by all means explain why.

Oof. Bad sales pitch to give to people who already like SR the way it is. You see, you aren't really marketing to an untapped player pool, to them. To them, you're attempting to steal away potential players (and thus support) for the real SR. Splitting the potential pool of players for a small game probably leads to two smaller games that can't compete in the market, and they both die. But I digress...

The basic reason why it won't appeal to a significant number of gamers is that it (like most games not made by WotC or WW) won't even be seen by a significant number of gamers, much less bought, read, and adopted. Unless you get a really big publisher behind it, you simply aren't likely to get enough market visibility to win appeal. Very few games make that climb. In a market where small publishers are having troubles getting their books on the shelves, much less off them, a retread of a borderline game is not going to win points with the retailers. All in all, since there's nothing really new in your game, there's very little reason to think it will be any more appealing than the original. So, we again come to askign why we should bother.

 

[Thanee]

Please elaborate. What specific mechanics can't be replaced with other mechanics without rendering the game as a whole moot?

Well, all. Once you start removing a part from the game and put something else back in, it will most probably not fit as good as the original part. It might, sure, but the chances are rather slim that it will.

You could be right. It'd be a matter of how much quality went into the project. Like anything else.

Yes, without the willingness to spend much, much work on it, there will quite surely not be a decent result.

But if you judge all setting conversions by the poorest examples, then obviously your opinion's ultimately going to be negative.

Where did I say, that I do this?

It was just one example for a game, which was not meant to be d20, much like Shadowrun.

There are good conversions, too. Most importantly Star Wars d20 (altho I also liked the d6 system). The d20 system lends itself fairly well to the kind of gaming required for Star Wars (heroic).

There are also well-done conversions, which I still dislike, i.e. Cthulhu d20, since it lost much of its flavor with the d20 version, altho it's certainly a pretty good conversion, but it's not the same game now only barely similar, since d20 is simply not as well-suited for Cthulhu as the BRP system. IMHO, of course, as all things this is just a matter of opinion.

Bye
Thanee