From: cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: ShadowRun HEROIC??? (was Re: Burn, GURPS...)
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:55:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: geraldo.1k1k3hINN5e9
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: mickey.cc.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan25.173214.15630@news.columbia.edu> jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>	Howdy. 

Yo.

>cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner) writes:
>>Well, he better not run any of the modules, or use all that -lovely- hardware
>>listed in books, 90% of which is there to make one a better killing machine.
>	Uh, Chris - you just argued below that one cannot use the published 
>modules to judge GURPS CP. I think that saying that you can judge SR based 
>on its modules is hypocritical in the extreme. 

John, by the very nature of GURPS, there is no "background" per se, or standard
theme in GURPS CP. Thus, because the GURPS CP Adventures book is not part of
any particular theme or background, one can't judge GURPS based on the CP Adv.
book. 

Since SR's modules and supplements are all linked into one (semi)coherent 
whole, one -can- use the SR modules to judge the way that Fasa has designed 
their universe. 

>>Look, one can do very interesting campaigns set in -any- universe, if one is
>>willing to work at it. This is a net.axiom. But, IMHO, the ShadowRun universe
>>is derivative, phony-feeling, and lacking in depth, with almost everything
>>designed around the bloody 'Shadowrun' player coercion method. 
>>
>>Even if people like you run good adventures/campaigns/whatevers, I have never,
>>myself, seen any SR game run as anything more than AD&D with guns. 
>	So what's your point - games which you personally don't see are not 
>valid? I have seen more bad GURPS games than good, but I don't think this 
>indicates that the system encourages lack of thought. 

I've also seen more bad GURPS games that good. I've seen more bad games, in 
-any- system, than good ones. But I've -never- personally seen any SR games
that weren't gun-fests, and before I got into this flamewar <grumble> I hadn't
even -heard- of any that were more than (here's my catchphrase again) AD&D with
guns. 

The point I've been trying to make is that, while there are undoubtebly lots
of very interesting, mature, and well-done SR campaigns out there, the base
nature of the SR background and game system is conductive to an immature and
uncreative play style, that SR attracts munchkins (both GM's and players) who
like having a complete universe so they don't have to think of anything 
themselves, and that SR, as a whole, is based around several flawed ideas that
influence everything else. 

<takes a deep breath> 

>	The GURPS *system*, IMO, is a decent one which suffers from massive 
>overcomplication.

I've never had a problem with this. 90% of the combat and 'mechanics' rules are
completely optional; one can pick and choose what one likes pretty easily. And,
when introducing players, I've never had a one complain about the complexity 
of character generation. 

> The GURPS Cyberpunk book, IMO, has a very good Netrunning 
>and background ideas, but lousy cyberware and equipment. 

I admit this, yes. GURPS has always been lax when it comes to equipment lists
for unusual backgrounds. But then, do you -really- need stats for everything,
like they have in SR and the like? 

As for cyberware, it's not real hard to modify point costs to fit your own 
campaign, and (this is what I like about GURPS CP) there's no artificial
"cyberpsychosis" or "essense loss" to restrict options. You can pack as much
cyberware in as you've got the points to pay for it; -this- is closer to the
CP literature than the other systems. 

>	The Shadowrun *system*, IMO, is awful and even playable only by 
>lots of rules patches - somewhat improved in SRII, but not enough. It *is* 
>'cinematic' in its handling of many things, but I don't think that is at 
>all outside of genre. The SR *world* is quite good, IMO - coherent while 
>still having lots of fantastic stuff and interesting ideas. 

This is whre we differ. I find the SR system to be awful (like you), but I
-definately- think that a 'cinematic' feel is -wrong- for cyberpunk-style
gaming. 

I also think the background is crap. It's derivative, unoriginal, full of 
munchkin-bait, and, most importntly, it's -NOT- cyberpunk. It lacks completely
the feel of the literature, concentrating (like I've said before) on the 
hardware rather than the people. Of the many many ways one could have stuck
magic into a CP-esque background, this is the -worst- way to do it, IMHO. 

>	Actually, when I decided to run a Cyberpunk campaign, I chose 
>Twilight 2k (1st Ed) as it gave me the deadly, realistic-feeling combat, 
>and did not get in the way of role-playing. 

<winces> Okay, your choice. I don't want to get into -another- flamewar....

>><sigh> The GURPS CP adventure book is irrelevant, as GURPS CP != GURPS CP 
>>Adventures. 
>>What I'm talking about here is how Shadowrun is wrapped around a basically 
>>flawed idea, that of 'Shadowrunning', which then influences everything 
>>else, and leads to a flawed background and game system. 
>	'Shadowrunning' is indeed mentioned alot in the SR rules, for 
>beginning players to get a handle on adventures. In a similar way, 'arche-
>types' are provided for beginning players who don't want to mess with 
>character creation yet. This is a minor annoyance for advanced players 
>who don't want that sort of thing, but easily ignored (like the random 
>reaction rolls in GURPS). 

This is a -problem- in my view, having the original game based on
'shadowruns'. It may make things easier for beginning characters, but in the
long haul, lots of players will never go farther than the initial stages, with
the player-coercion 'shadowrunning' concept, and the archtypical cardboard 
cutout characters, complete with pre-made attitude. This is what I have seen
in my experience; your milage may vary.

>	OTOH, I think it is extremely useful for beginning players, who - 
>if given GURPS and GURPS CP - would quickly find themselves buried under a 
>ton of rules just for character creation, and with no clear ideas for what 
>to do. 

Maybe I just picks my gaming groups well, but I've never had a single complaint
from a new GURPS player over the creation rules. I've heard nothing but
compliments for the system, and at least one old-time roleplayer, upon 
borrowing my GURPS rules, referrred to them as the 'easiest game system he'd
ever seen', save for TFOS and 'Toon. :> 

Of course, I don't just hand players the books, I give them a hands-on guide to
the process. This is a remarkable help to new players, and much much better 
than having an 'archetype' system.

-- 
    "Well, do you ever get the feeling that the Story's too damn real
                        and in the present tense?"
               Christian Wagner - cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu 
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy