[Shadowrun] For Earl and Paul (and the rest of you oldies)

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:06 am

This might be right up your alley.

Back to older fluff, older material, newer rules.

Likely to go along with this.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:49 am

I'm pretty hesitant to like this. Foremost among my concerns is anything that draws attention away from the pen and paper game isn't something I'm too happy about. Yes, I get one doesn't have exclude the other-but I know how many people have been lost to World of Warcraft, which is easier to fire up and play than getting a group of four people around a table is.

All that said I just don't much care for video games. In any case I'll follow the game's progress, but I don't think I'll kick in. Video games make my hands hurt, and I just prefer pen and paper RPG's.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:37 pm

Shadowrun 2050 doesn't make any sense to me. The SR4 rules already include everything from SR1-3: it's not like there aren't rules for Wired Reflexes in 2050, you know?* So I guess it's just going to be mostly a setting book? Useful for the people who are playing SR4 but don't own any of the older setting material, if nothing else. For me, of course - I hate the fucking useless, fucktarded SR4 rules, and have all the SR1-3 books - not so helpful, but it's awesome to think that maybe they'll be able to entice a new generation of players with the setting I enjoyed so much. Hell, I'd rather go back to 2050 and play through the whole metaplot again than deal with the 2070 metaplot.

Shadowrun Returns excites me a little; while I'm hesitant to see "my" property spread out, the names on this - Weisman, Stackpole, Dowd, Kenson, even Mulvhill, and I hear Hardy's okay - are exciting as hell. 2d turn-based combat isn't exactly my thing, but, you know, whatever. If it could let me play Shadowrun without wrangling three other people into the thing, I'll take what I can get!

*Ah. Well. Decking and rigging will have to be rebuilt, now that I think of it.

paladin2019 · Post by **paladin2019** » Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:41 pm

RE: SR4 in 2050, I'm not sure it's worth it. How much gets cut due to regressing SOTA, how much gets changed due to regressing SOTA, etc. Gimme some house ruled SR2 and get outta my way.

And I have much love for the old console SR game, limited as it was. If this new game is like that, I may get onboard.

Oh, yeah, I forgot

I hate the fucking useless, fucktarded SR4 rules

+ lots

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:51 pm

[quote="Serious Paul"All that said I just don't much care for video games. In any case I'll follow the game's progress, but I don't think I'll kick in. Video games make my hands hurt, and I just prefer pen and paper RPG's.[/quote]

You did see the second link, right? That's pen and paper, not video game based.

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:53 pm

Stackpole, Mulvihill, and Odom really don't thrill me. I think fear is more the proper term.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:41 am

Jeff Hauze wrote:You did see the second link, right? That's pen and paper, not video game based.

I think you mean the first one, and no I had missed that concentrating instead on the video game. The idea of a "retro game" is something I hadn't heard until you just pointed it out. Now I have some thinking to do.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:08 am

Jeff Hauze wrote:Stackpole, Mulvihill, and Odom really don't thrill me. I think fear is more the proper term.

Stackpole's a weird choice, since he only wrote one thing for it, basically. I suspect he's on more for his storytelling than his Shadowrun. Mulvihill was definitely someone I didn't get on with, but he's at least got the credit, having overseen SR and ED at critical metaplot periods. Odom I've never been impressed with, personally, but I can see why they'd pick him. They should have gone with Findlay instead, though.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:38 pm

Yeah, but Nigel's dead.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:54 pm

Good work identifying the joke. Always helps bring the funny.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:23 pm

No, no, no...no. No. No.