Shadowrun editions breakdown

silva · July 31, 2013, 08:04:11 AM

Warthur, I think its more than a setting matter: 1st/2nd ed is more akin to O/AD&D in which its more simple and straightforward (aka: gamist), while 4th/5th ed is more akin to GURPS with point-buy and advantages/disadvantages bloat, etc (aka: simulationist).

Warthur · July 31, 2013, 08:11:40 AM

I think I'll go for 2E then; since I can't really take the setting seriously I'd kind of like to ham up the "people had very inaccurate ideas about how we'd interface with computers in the 1980s" angle from a setting perspective, and from a system perspective I've prefer something nice and simple to something built around character optimisation (not least because I don't expect to use it for more than the occasional one-shot).

J Arcane · July 31, 2013, 08:40:40 AM

Quote from: Warthur;676142I think I'll go for 2E then; since I can't really take the setting seriously I'd kind of like to ham up the "people had very inaccurate ideas about how we'd interface with computers in the 1980s" angle from a setting perspective, and from a system perspective I've prefer something nice and simple to something built around character optimisation (not least because I don't expect to use it for more than the occasional one-shot).

Actually, the funny thing is, other than the dated spec numbers, SR's old system was so good because it far better resembled how an actual network is structured than the silly maze-grids in CP2020.

Of course, for extra irony, the creators of Shadowrun Returns, seeking to work within limits, went with a grid-based combat system for the Matrix.

Bobloblah · July 31, 2013, 10:33:41 AM

What about the new edition? What does it use?

languagegeek · July 31, 2013, 03:47:41 PM

Wasn't "Shadowrun 2050" the old setting with 4e rules?

LibraryLass · July 31, 2013, 07:19:59 PM

Quote from: languagegeek;676226Wasn't "Shadowrun 2050" the old setting with 4e rules?

It was, but it was just a sourcebook, not a complete alternate game unto itself. It even had Dodger and his chummers on the cover.

KrakaJak · July 31, 2013, 09:19:46 PM

Quote from: silva;676141Warthur, I think its more than a setting matter: 1st/2nd ed is more akin to O/AD&D in which its more simple and straightforward (aka: gamist), while 4th/5th ed is more akin to GURPS with point-buy and advantages/disadvantages bloat, etc (aka: simulationist).

Ummm...no?

1-3e had an increasingly complex priority-point buy character system. The rulset also got a little strange with 3e but was basically a D6 dice pool game.

4e character creation uses a similar but simplified priority system. 4e rulset, however, is very similar to nWoD with D6s. One of the complaints about 4e was the de-emphasis on gear (similar again to nWoD). It also added the "edge" stat...which was basically like bennies/force/fate points.

Also, and completely irrelevant to your post: One of my favorite things about SR4e rules is that you can critically fail and critically succeed (or just plain succeed) on the same roll.

silva · July 31, 2013, 11:07:03 PM

Krakajak, I think youre confusing things out.

Its 2nd ed that have the more simple, priority-based, character creation. While 4th edition is full GURPS-like point-buy. Also, its 2nd ed who have the more simpler skill packages (like Firearms), while 4th ed has those packages broken down in individual skills (like Pistols, SMGs, Rifles, Shotguns, etc).

Skywalker · July 31, 2013, 11:35:35 PM

Quote from: silva;675949Ditto.

Tripplo.

James Gillen · August 01, 2013, 02:45:42 AM

Quote from: KrakaJak;676293Ummm...no?

1-3e had an increasingly complex priority-point buy character system. The rulset also got a little strange with 3e but was basically a D6 dice pool game.

4e character creation uses a similar but simplified priority system. 4e rulset, however, is very similar to nWoD with D6s. One of the complaints about 4e was the de-emphasis on gear (similar again to nWoD). It also added the "edge" stat...which was basically like bennies/force/fate points.

I think there was an Edge stat in 3E, but I don't have a copy to look at.

QuoteAlso, and completely irrelevant to your post: One of my favorite things about SR4e rules is that you can critically fail and critically succeed (or just plain succeed) on the same roll.

Well, no, you can have a critical glitch if you get at least half of your dice pool as ones AND no successes. But with a "normal" glitch (at least half 1s and at least one success) it is indeed possible to succeed in a task and still have something get incidentally screwed up.

JG

silva · August 01, 2013, 10:10:58 AM

Quote from: James Gillen;676341I think there was an Edge stat in 3E, but I don't have a copy to look at.
JG

Nope, it was Karma just like in 1e/2e. What 3e did was breaking down the skills in sub-skills, adding the new knowledge skills, and various adjustments overall (to initiative, pools, matrix, rigging, etc). Most of ´em for the better.

In the end, though, I still prefer the simplicity of 2e.

Silverlion · August 01, 2013, 08:18:20 PM

I wrote my breakdown elsewhere, but I still have a preference for 4E's simplicity and would honestly have liked 5E to simply fix hacking/decking to fit the rest of 4E.

silva · August 01, 2013, 08:45:35 PM

Frankly, I dont understand when people call 4e simple.

It has the worst character creation in terms of simplicity (Gurps-like point-buy)

It has the worst skills structure in terms of simplicity (Gurps-like skills bloat)

It introduces a feats/disads structure that is far from simple (and, once again, Gurps-like in nature).

It introduces even more atributes/stats.

The only thing that is more simple is the resolution with fixed target numbers vs variable ones from old editions. But even then, the structure created around it makes so that the pools of dice are even bigger then old editions.

:confused:

Patrick · August 01, 2013, 10:29:53 PM

Quote from: silva;676567Frankly, I dont understand when people call 4e simple.

It has the worst character creation in terms of simplicity (Gurps-like point-buy)

It has the worst skills structure in terms of simplicity (Gurps-like skills bloat)

It introduces a feats/disads structure that is far from simple (and, once again, Gurps-like in nature).

It introduces even more atributes/stats.

The only thing that is more simple is the resolution with fixed target numbers vs variable ones from old editions. But even then, the structure created around it makes so that the pools of dice are even bigger then old editions.

:confused:

I am getting the feeling you don't like GURPS!
I find the 4e resolution system easier and that makes my job as GM easier; variable TN is such a pain to nail down. Even with the larger dice pools, the + or - 2 dice shortcut works well for our group. But I definitely agree with you about too many attributes and fiddly chargen.

Silverlion · August 01, 2013, 11:48:06 PM

Point buy isn't that necessarily complex. (It can be and honestly 4E is one of the most complex games I use.)

Disadvantages aren't "new" with 4E per se either, and they make sense for some games. They work, and work well, mind you for Shadowrun.

Resolution IS simpler, and that's where I prefer the simplicity. If I could get Priority chargen, 20a resolutions system, and the 5E hacking rules, it would be perfect.