I admit, SR is the one series where I'm the *closest* to an edition warrior that you can get without actually being one(because I don't actually hate 4e and will indeed play in it under certain circumstances; like being more 2050s, Karmagen, and some other things.)

I can't say it's a terrible system, but for me, it loses a lot of the aspects of 2e/3e that were even fun mechanically while it was streamlining(but I know how much gamers like streamlining so I can understand why it gets suggested a lot. Really, that's not even an insult to people who like streamlining, I like some smoother systems, I just don't think 2e/3e are beyond clunky or hard to teach, save Matrix and Rigging and even those are teachable in time.) There is no doubt the new Matrix is a lot better.

But the loss of the Magic fluff killed a lot for me(I liked Shamans/Hermetics as they were before, and while I could houserule it to be back to 2e/3e style, it was more work than I wanted to actually put in when I could just pick up an older edition.) The loss of Combat Pool I felt took away some fun strategies(also see Spell/Magic Pool, Astral Combat Pool, etc.) Lower die pools all around. Less emphasis on Attributes overall. 3e had some of this with the connecting skill, but it wasn't as bad as 4e, when they made them exceedingly over important and then wondered why people wanted to juice them at every possible chargen moment(all while charging an arm and a leg for them in game.)

I liked deriving Reaction from Intelligence and Quickness(since the stat is more of a 'combined' stat than a 'Physical' stat that 4e made it). Just a lot of odds and ends. SR2-3's Priority system was a good basic character generation system, and the Point Gen in the Companions in both editions was much better than 4e's overall(which was 'Dump 200 points into Attributes, go from there' due to the die pool system). BeCKs I felt, despite being a houseruled system, was a little better tuned than 4e's companion's Karmagen(with that being the best way to create a 4e character, since 4e's Priority system was pretty bad, IMO.)

There are a lot of things I feel 4e/4A missed the boat on. But, again, I understand people preferring a game with a simpler Matrix and die pool system(it IS easier to run), but in Shadowrun's case, I don't mind putting in the extra prepwork. (I also understand some people can't afford the time.)

I've stopped running Shadowrun in any Shadowrun system.  I agree with a lot of folks in that I haven't enjoyed the way the setting has evolved.  I also think that instead of improving upon earlier editions rulesets, 4E and later have largely replaced them, while only keeping some cosmetic similarities.  

So instead of having to concern myself with new future history, I just set things where I want and how I want in whatever generic system I prefer.  Recently it has been Savage Worlds, but I've also run it in Gurps and think most any decent generic system could likely handle it.

Which edition had all the super cool regional supplements like London in the Shadowrun verse and all that?

Quote from: Benoist;722721Which edition had all the super cool regional supplements like London in the Shadowrun verse and all that?

2nd and 3rd (mainly 2nd).

Quote from: Benoist;722721Which edition had all the super cool regional supplements like London in the Shadowrun verse and all that?

First and Second, had a lot. Stuff like London Sourcebook, Germany Sourcebook, Shadowbeat(Media), Neo-Anarchists Guide to North America, the two NAN sourcebooks were 1st edition. 2nd edition had stuff like Tir Tairngire, Tir na Nog, Denver, Cyberpirates, Aztlan, and the like. There were many more than that from the old days.

Later games had some as well-3rd had some cool stuff like Target: Wastelands which was stuff like the Desert, Arctic, and the like, it had Target. Awakened Lands(Australia), and Asia, Latin America, and Europe.

4e was severely lacking in cool location books. The ones they had IMO didn't hold a candle to the old, or even the 3e books.

So I guess I should just shoot to find a copy of 2e, if I like this type of stuff, eh?

The French Shadowrun must have been 2e.

2e is better than 1e, yes?

2e is much better than 1e, yes. 1e was the very rough first edition of it all.

IMO, 3e's overall system works just about like 2's but it's a bit more solid overall; However-2e-3e books are all pretty much compatible with each other. 1e's mechanics were similar but 2e cleaned up a lot over 1e. You can use any of the 1e location sourcebooks with no problems at all though.

Mechanically you can cross-pollenate 2e and 3e perfectly well; the differences are minor enough. We used to use 2e gear sourcebooks with 3e all the time, until 3e's came out.

Quote from: Brander;722714I've stopped running Shadowrun in any Shadowrun system.  I agree with a lot of folks in that I haven't enjoyed the way the setting has evolved.  I also think that instead of improving upon earlier editions rulesets, 4E and later have largely replaced them, while only keeping some cosmetic similarities.  

So instead of having to concern myself with new future history, I just set things where I want and how I want in whatever generic system I prefer.  Recently it has been Savage Worlds, but I've also run it in Gurps and think most any decent generic system could likely handle it.

This is me, basically.

After Shadowrun Returns came out I got a hankering to play some fantasy-spiked cyberpunk, so I just wrote my own for AR/H&H instead.