I see a considerable number of SR veterans saying the line began to go downhill by mid 3rd edition. As someone who played a lot of SR 2nd ed, but just a couple of 3rd edition games (my group desintegrated around its release), I don't understand this sentiment, but would like to.

Someone care to explain ?


P.S: the only thing I remember my group felt was a change in tone/atmosphere, straying away from the more gritty/dark vibe of 1e and 2e, to a more colourful/action! one, if that makes any sense. But even if does, it doesn't have anything to do with the quality of writing or ideas in plot/splash books really.

Some of the later 3e books didn't even have stats in it.

Not that it needed any more crunch mind you.

I think you nailed it though - SR3 (the only one I have a rulebook for anymore) just wasn't the same 'character' it was in 1e and 2e.  It was downgraded to silly comic fantasy rather than the hardboiled cyberpunk it tried to be (with magic) originally.

Between the clunky and unintuitive system that just got worse over time and the change in art direction and adventures, it just faded away as no one was interested.

In my club, SR gets a lukewarm "meh" when someone mentions it...then we move on to something else.

For me the difference between 2e and 3e was mostly one of flavor and style.  Mechanically, I used a mix of 2e and 3e rules, but it was the backstory, the in-character Shadowtalk, all that stuff is just...not as good somehow.  Somewhere in 3e things went off the rails.

Anyone crying about the crunch is too much of a nerd for me. But those of us who got real unhappy mostly complained about the influx of the so called "Pink Mohawk" crowd, people influenced by anime, people who wrote material that was basically "I saw this on the internet and had to stat it!" with out any consideration as to how it really fit in the game, or why it should be added.

For me it was 3rd edition that saw the start of a bad habit that SR4 still carries on: recycling material. A lot of books were just reprints, with a little shuffling of paragraphs here and there presented as "BRAND NEW!" Given how large the SR fan base is, and how talented some of them are it was both disgusting and insulting to me.

I'm not a major shadowrun fan, but I felt that 3e was getting better and better, setting-wise, toward the end of its run.

RPGPundit

3e started off decently enough, but in my opinion it's where they started recycling material. Books like new Seattle were almost blatant reprints, and a lot of others just lifted whole sections of previously printed material, changed a few words or names and presented it as "Sparkly New!" Seattle 2072 is the 4e setting book for Seattle, and it's painfully awkward at points because I can almost literally sit down and compare it the Seattle Sourcebook, printed way back in 91-and show you how they just basically didn't even try.

I'm pretty passionate about Shadowrun, as I've played it since it's introduction in 89. A friend of ours picked up the SR1 main book, and since then we've played almost weekly since then. With a few exceptions, most of my group has been with me since then.

I love Shadowrun, and I think it's a great game because of how unique it's Setting has always been presented. In my opinion there's a fine line between keeping the game accessible, and making it "dumb."

Well, like I said, I'm not hardcore enough to be able to claim any expertise on the subject, but my own anecdotal experience was that 3e felt to me like the moment the game setting really became international in scope.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;485087Well, like I said, I'm not hardcore enough to be able to claim any expertise on the subject, but my own anecdotal experience was that 3e felt to me like the moment the game setting really became international in scope.

That is absolutely correct I think. It sort of saddens me to think they became successful right about the time they just sort of let the product slip in some areas.

I'm running and playing in two 4e games right now. We're hashing out how we like things, and making adjustments.

Quote from: RPGPundit;485087Well, like I said, I'm not hardcore enough to be able to claim any expertise on the subject, but my own anecdotal experience was that 3e felt to me like the moment the game setting really became international in scope.

RPGPundit

Did you mean international in scope in reference to the game itself (like popularity/distribution), or the game's setting material?

I have Shadows of Asia.  I think that was 3e, and I felt it kind of a first considering the game's currency is nuyen.

Quote from: Blackhand;485125Did you mean international in scope in reference to the game itself (like popularity/distribution), or the game's setting material?

I have Shadows of Asia.  I think that was 3e, and I felt it kind of a first considering the game's currency is nuyen.

I meant in terms of setting material.  If I'm not mistaken, Shadowrun was internationally popular (particularly in Germany)  before 3e.

RPGPundit

A pal over at Dumpshock made the following comment..

QuoteThe feel in the older stuff was that being running the Shadows was because the system didn't want you, or wouldn't let you in. You had to do the corps' dirty work in order to survive. Now? It reads like it's some sort of trend. Like getting a tribal or tramp-stamp tattoo.

I agree.

Quote from: Serious Paul;4850033e started off decently enough, but in my opinion it's where they started recycling material. Books like new Seattle were almost blatant reprints, and a lot of others just lifted whole sections of previously printed material, changed a few words or names and presented it as "Sparkly New!" Seattle 2072 is the 4e setting book for Seattle, and it's painfully awkward at points because I can almost literally sit down and compare it the Seattle Sourcebook, printed way back in 91-and show you how they just basically didn't even try.

Suppose I've never read any Shadowrun in my life, and my first exposure to Seattle content is the 4e setting book for it. Will the book be good for me?

That's a pretty serious question. I'd say yeah they did that job pretty decently, although a smart reader (I think) might pick up on some areas that feel a little wonky. (Inside jokes, repeated material, etc...that just break the feel a little, but not seriously enough to a new reader.)

For a setting book it's useful, decently presented, and edited. I'd say with the core books and this you could run Shadowrun 4e forever.

Speaking of core books one the things Shadowruns various reprints have left a sour taste in mouth over the years is every time they say something like "We'll make it easier, and everything will be found in this one book!" And, yes, technically you could play the game with the main book and nothing lse. butthen they proceed to make the gun book, the rigger book, the magic book, etc...Just like they always have.

Some of that I'm willing to tolerate: I get they only have so much space in the main book. So it's a trade off. But sometimes it gets a little frustrating to know that they should have easily kn own, and indeed have admitted to knowing ahead of time, that they could have consolidated rules-not setting material, not equipment-in one book and choose not to. Which then leads to them scattering rules across several books. When it's the optional and crappy rules, who cares right?

But some stuff they should know better about.

But yeah for the list price Seattle 2072 for a new player is worth it. if you wanted to save a few bucks and get almost the same product order the Seattle Sourcebook from 91, and you'd get almost an identical book with slightly cheaper production value. (Softcover vs. Hardcover.)