D&D 4E OT: Shadowrun 4E announced

[kigmatzomat]

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.

IMO the only valid reason to do a d20 SR would be to targe those who are familiar with SRd6 and don't like the mechanics or those who are too lazy to bother learning any other system than d20.

As others have stated, there are plenty of d20 supplements out there that could do SR. The fact that there are would marginalize d20 SR. Had SR gone d20 3-4 years ago it might have swept the market but would now be competing with WotC's Modern/Future supplements. Not a good idea.

Last but not least, I think the majority of SR players *enjoy* the mechanics. That fanbase that would be alienated by a d20 implementation just as if WotC dumped SR and released D&D d6. Personally, I like the fact that SR works differently from d20 so that I don't feel like I'm playing "D&D 2050" and can distance myself from other game settings.

Plus, I like the d6 system better than d20. (gasp!) d20 is easier to learn, no doubt. But I don't like the simplistic statistical events. I'll take a touch of wobble in return for the existence of a bell curve-type odds distribution. Of course, I found Earthdawn's Step mechanic to be an incredibly elegant mechanic that eliminated virtually all the strange wobble so I'm a freak.

 

[Ottergame]

So no ones upset that this is their 4th edition in 16 years?

Must be nice to not be WotC.

1st came out in 1989, 2ed in 1992, 3rd in 1998, and now 4th in 2005. 6 and 7 year gaps aren't bad. If WOTC makes 4th edition D&D in 2010, that's a 7 year gap.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

1st came out in 1989, 2ed in 1992, 3rd in 1998, and now 4th in 2005. 6 and 7 year gaps aren't bad. If WOTC makes 4th edition D&D in 2010, that's a 7 year gap.

Especially since SR 2 should more contemporarily be labeled SR 1.5

@Henry
Got you now...it's all about the taste of shrimps again, I guess.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

1st came out in 1989, 2ed in 1992, 3rd in 1998, and now 4th in 2005. 6 and 7 year gaps aren't bad. If WOTC makes 4th edition D&D in 2010, that's a 7 year gap.

So (A)D&D is OK with an average of 6.5 years between revisions?

1E 1979 (counting from when the MM, PHB and DMG were all avialable)
2E 1989
3E 2000
3.5E 2003

Even though 3.5 is barely worthy of beign described as a new edition. take that out and it's 10+ years between editions.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I wouldn't say that, either - Mutants & Masterminds isn't d20, and in fact has much less in common with the SRD than D&D.

[hijack]

But then, isn't d20 really just the root mechanic (roll 1d20, add modifiers, compare to a target number) when you get down to it? I would argue that MnM is more d20 in that it strips down the entire system to that mechanic. That's all there is. I mean, there are the other trappings (skills, the combat system, ability scores, feats, and so on), but the mechanics boil down to just that one roll (over and over again). Even if it has less in common with the d20 SRD (which really ought to be called the d20 Fantasy SRD, IMO) than D&D, by not having the legacy issues that D&D has, it's (perhaps) a purer form of d20.

Nick

 

[Lobo Lurker]

Thanks Kajamba. I was going to refute that, but didn't want to hijack the thread. Heh "We now return you to your regularly scheduled SRD6 vs. DnD20 debate"

 

[Henry]

Heh "We now return you to your regularly scheduled SRD6 vs. DnD20 debate"

Of course, it would be

*shouts at the ether*

NICE IF WE HAD SOME ACTUAL SR 4 FACTS to debate...

 

[Umbran]

Yes, I am very amused and self-content at this moment.

Don't be. And if you are, don't tell us about it. Displaying your ego as part of the discussion is a good way to get people to disregard your reasoning.

You shouldn't be smug just yet, because you're missing a major issue - using the right tool for the job. D20 does a number of things very well. However, the number of changes one has to make to the base design in order to make it fit old SR behavior is long, and indicates that d20 really wasn't designed to depict the SR world. The old SR system (and hopefully the new one), being designed for the purpose of depicting SR, should be able to do a better job.

To analogize - let's say old SR is a screwdriver. The new system, hopefully, will be another form of screwdriver. They'll get the same job done, in similar ways. Even if the screws one drove won't work with the new tool, the overall experience of using the tool is very similar.

D20 is a hammer. Yes, with enough finagling and finesse you can drive a screw with a hammer. But the experience really isn't the same. If you really don't have a screwdriver around, maybe you should use the hammer, but otherwise?

But appealing to a new audience of consumers would be very smart. And that's the purpose of offering a d20 version.

As others have already noted, I'm not at all sure that's what you'd be doing. SR, in some form or another, has been around for a decade and a half. The audience, in general, has already been thoroughly exposed, and is thus not new. You're instead looking at an old audience - specifically those who liked the idea, but not the execution. You're trying for those who disliked the d6 mechanic, but managed to see the setting value through it. That's a pretty select (and therefore small) crowd.

If you really are trying for a new audience, there's no reason to do SR, specifically, because the name isn't a draw for new players. You can do another cyber-fantasy game, and play to d20's strengths in designing it, rather than try to shave the square peg to fit the round hole. And, in so doing, you can completely bypass all licensing issues by coming up with a rich world setting within the genre, but without any of SR's product identity. In so doing, you've now come up with a product that is far more easy to market, and therefore far more likely to reach an audience.

 

[Sanguinemetaldawn]

like the energizer bunny...

Wow.
Kinda funny to see the this still going.


I started with the original in 1990, and I actually think variable staging numbers are a good idea, so I guess that makes a statement about me.

Agree with the comment about 2E, it was more of a "SR Revised" than a new edition. I was able to use 100% of my pre-2nd stuff with it, so it was a non-issue...it was one new book that we could use, or not use, depending on how we felt. It didn't render worthless or highly problematic the couple hundred dollars in material I had (bear in mind this was 10+ years ago, so thats more than it sounds).



To "re-rail" the topic, from what I have read, my impression is that the decker hacking stuff is essentially derived straight from Ghost in the Shell. The information is sketchy, but thats what it sounds like. I personally feel this is a very bad idea, though the intent behind it is laudable.

In Ghost in the Shell, Motoko, the main character, is actually both a skilled combat operator and hacker. Leaving the peculiarities of the character aside, what makes her so effective/powerful, is her ability to hack the minds of her opponents. She is very effective combat operative, but her ability to take control of other cyborgs is peerless (with the exception of a VERY few freaks who have bizarre abilities).

Anyway, it sounds like this is the direction SR4 maybe going with hackers - real time hacking of opponent minds on the battlefield. Like I said, I think this is a bad idea for a lot of reasons, at least, reasons that stem from logic.

It may also be a very GOOD idea from the P.O.V. of gameplay. We shall see.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I started with the original in 1990, and I actually think variable staging numbers are a good idea, so I guess that makes a statement about me.

Well, welcome to the club of old-school runners, chummer.

In Ghost in the Shell, Motoko, the main character, is actually both a skilled combat operator and hacker. Leaving the peculiarities of the character aside, what makes her so effective/powerful, is her ability to hack the minds of her opponents. She is very effective combat operative, but her ability to take control of other cyborgs is peerless (with the exception of a VERY few freaks who have bizarre abilities).

Anyway, it sounds like this is the direction SR4 maybe going with hackers - real time hacking of opponent minds on the battlefield. Like I said, I think this is a bad idea for a lot of reasons, at least, reasons that stem from logic.

It may also be a very GOOD idea from the P.O.V. of gameplay. We shall see.

I rather guess they want to make a decker..errrr...hacker a mobile wireless manipulator of electronic units...kinda a "look at it, hack it" philosophy that is far away from the deckers we know. Effectively, they want to keep the hacker in the group, and have him hack systems by proximity instead of by distance. Of course, it might make the electronics and security specialist obsolete...but it'll mean your hacker doesn't have to infiltrate the whole system to get at the cam controls...he probably only has to look at a cam, send an override code via W-LAN antenna and take control of that one cam. Or it will look kinda like an astral adept equivalent...peeking in at the Matrix at that one place and manipulate it so the electronic part obeys.

Not my cup of tea, but I'll certainly take a look at it to see how it really works.