D&D 4E OT: Shadowrun 4E announced

[Staffan]

First of all: It's getting a little hotter in here. Let's please remember to be civil towards one another; we're all rolling the same platonic solids, here.

That does seem to be the point of contention. Some people prefer rolling lots of cubes, while others prefer a single ikosahedron.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I just don't understand what they need a 4e for. 3e didn't make any particularly large changes to the system (except, IMHO, that 2e actually worked better for some things; Threat Ratings, f'rinstance, are a better idea IMHO than 3e's "Equal," "Superior," etc. ratings, and I think magical characters were unnecessarily gimped in 3e). Are they really changing the system that much, or just trying to sell another $35 book?

To me, 3E was starting to get cludgy with many of the core rules having been pulled out and rewritten in the supplements (i.e. Matrix, Rigger, Companion, the SOTA guides, etc). I can live with having them condense the best mechanics written to date into a single volume over a 7-year cycle. (Compare to the 3.0->3.5 timeframe and the cost of the DMG & PHB)

SR2 was an excellent bit of work that improved gameplay immensely due to standardized staging and simplified burst rules. SR3 resolved many of the campaign-level issues where SR2 characters "maxed out" quickly (combat types needed only 3 skills to master firearms, melee weapons, and unarmed combat) and gave mages and non-wired folks a chance to get a turn before being slaughtered with the initiative tweak.

SR4 has a good chance of being a decent advancement of the system and setting and that's what I'm hoping for. Of course, every new release has a decent chance of being a steaming load of troll-poo smeared across semi-glossy paper in a poorly bound book. But hey, Kevin Siembada has to lose the will to write eventually.

 

[Henry]

However, they're still all part of the same set of six that we all know and love.

 

[Umbran]

Uggh. I tire of hearing that assertion, especially as vague and unsupported as it typically is. There's nothing in the SR setting that d20 can't handle.

There may be little in the setting that's problematic, but a game is more than just the setting. A game, taken as a whole, includes the "look and feel" of the thing in play. And with dramatically different dice mechanics and combat systems, the two systems simply aren't equivalent.

I think that's a good thing. Diversity of system leads to strength of gaming on the whole.

If you really want to use just the setting, do so, with d20 Modern rules.

 

[Klaus]

1 - I played and ran tons of Shadowrun and d20.

2 - I don't think SR *needs* a d20 conversion

3 - That being said, it isn't impossible or even mildly hard to do:

- Baseline: d20 Modern
- Armor as DR (UA)
- Damage Save (ala M&M and UA)
- Cyberware rules from d20 Future (including the "too many hardware = negative levels" rule, Street Samurai would take the Cybertake feat like crazy)
- Make a new spellcasting class that can learn as many spells as wanted and cast them spontaneously, but each spell requires a damage save.
- Take a peek at the upcoming d20 Cyberspace for decking. The VRnet pdf works for the moment.
- In fact, the "dealing" of stuff and cash can be handled quite well with the Wealth system.

 

[trancejeremy]

Shadowrun used to be my favorite RPG game, before the Dumpshock people took it over and (IMHO) ruined it.

There is nothing in it that d20 couldn't do. Rule wise, SR is fairly close to D6. Star Wars went from D6 to d20 okay.

A very simple way of doing SR would be to use the Spycraft rules as the core, the cyber rules from OGL Cybernet, and the magic system from Sovereign Stone.

Heck, even if you wanted to keep the same sort of damage system, you could just use the one from M&M, which is very similar to SR.

Anyway, with regards to SR4, reading the press release would scare me if I were still a SR fan:

"# The core mechanics are completely revised to be simpler and more streamlined for quicker, easier and more consistent play.
# Matrix 2.0! An all-new level of wireless “augmented reality” overlays the real world, unleashing hackers to be mobile digital wizards.
# The year is 2070 five years since the System Failure took down the old Matrix, nine years since the passing of the comet unleashed wild and unexplained magic in the world. The Sixth World has changed. Some of the players are familiar, but there are new facesand new forcesat work in the shadows"


The 3 previous editions weren't very different. 2E and 1E had some big changes in the damage system (as the 1E was basically broken), but 3E mostly added rules to cripple high powered characters. This sounds a lot different. And it seems like they are changing the setting dramatically.

 

[Aristotle]

Shadowrun used to be my favorite RPG game, before the Dumpshock people took it over and (IMHO) ruined it.

I'm curious to what you mean by 'took it over' and exactly what they did to ruin it.

I'm curious about the big changes in the new edition, but not worried. I'm happy to see some new life blown into an old friend, and can't wait to see what the results are (good or bad).

As far as the d20 stuff goes. We have a thread on that in the d20 Modern forum, so I won't comment on it here.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'm trying to think of a way to get my point to sink in. Perhaps an example would help. Everything you just said also applied to the original Star Wars RPG.

I think the start wars setting is probably not the best one for saying "look, d20 really does work with anything!".

Lightsabre=sword
Force=magic
planets=countries

And all of a sudden, star wars is actually an epic fantasy, not a sci fi... IOW if d20 does star wars well, it's actually doing epic fantasy well. Which is what it was originally designed to do.

SR needs:
1. Starting characters that are flexible, and actually good at what they do
2. Deadly, risky combat that negatively impacts on the success of the job.

d20 doesn't do either of those well.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

SR needs:
1. Starting characters that are flexible, and actually good at what they do
2. Deadly, risky combat that negatively impacts on the success of the job.

d20 doesn't do either of those well.

I don't get it.

1. Upon character creation, choose three "core skills" (or 1 + Int bonus, or whatever). You get a +4 bonus on those skills. Tada! Characters who are particularly good at what they do.

2. Implement an Armor as DR and a class- or level-based Defense adjustment (a la AU). Do not increase hit points with level. Have a DM who enforces story-based problems should combat ever occur.

Done.

How was that even hard? Sorry, Saev, you're pretty out-to-lunch on this one.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I think the start wars setting is probably not the best one for saying "look, d20 really does work with anything!".

Lightsabre=sword
Force=magic
planets=countries

And all of a sudden, star wars is actually an epic fantasy, not a sci fi... IOW if d20 does star wars well, it's actually doing epic fantasy well. Which is what it was originally designed to do.

SR needs:
1. Starting characters that are flexible, and actually good at what they do
2. Deadly, risky combat that negatively impacts on the success of the job.

d20 doesn't do either of those well.

Deadly, risky combat, eh? Funny that Star Wars is brought up in the same post. Vitality/Wounds system is VERY deadly and risky. Critical goes straight to wounds, most weapons do around 3d8 damage, which is more than enough to immediately kill an opponent. Vitality goes down FAST when a Force User is cranking out Force Powers.

The d20 system is tweaked a good amount to fit the setting. It isn't as simple a comparison as you make it out to be.