From: kucloak@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bryan Kennedy Reed)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: The Borg and Cyber-poseurs (What is Bladerunner?)
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:57:04 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <39000@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike) writes:
> In article <g91v3505.5.718232824@giraffe.ru.ac.za> g91v3505@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR S VAN ONSELEN) writes:
>>
>>In article <Ien8FV600WB=R7umUg@andrew.cmu.edu> Patrick C Leger <pl1u+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>
>>>Yeah, the technology alone doesn't equate to cyberpunk...It's the atmosphere
>>>and the attitude.  It's really irritating when I see shit like Shadowrun, where
>>>no explanation of cp is given, and no credit given to those who defined the
>>>movement.  
> 
> 	This, of course, depends very much on who you talk to.  For
> some people, the CP genre has sucked up half of the great literary
> works in existance (ok, ok, only a forth...grin!) and tends to
> include as many pre-CP works as post-CP works...etc.  Authors who
> dislike being categorized as CP are suddenly devoured by the genre
> and its readers...etc...
[STUFF DELETED]
> 	Shadowrun was a trendy work that happened to succeed.  It
> was a lot of flash that covered up a not-so-nice interior.  (In some
> ways, that's CP in and of itself...)  I don't consider it cyberpunk,
> although I do believe it's somewhat similar to the trash people who
> live in a cyberpunk future might watch on their television (or
> holovid or whatever you want to call it)...
>
Just curious, are you talking about the books or the gaming system?
If you are talking about the books, I will agree that they are mostly
crap (except for a couple of the short stories in the first
anthology.)   Now if you are talking about the Game, I will have to
disagree.

>>I was wondering what people on this group thought about Shadowrun. Now I 
>>have one opinion at least. I found it fairly bland myself.
>>
>>But I don't quite get the "no explanation/no credit" part. Why should an 
>>author be obliged to describe the genre each time he writes a book/series? 
>>Does every author who writes heroic fantasy have to say "And I thank my 
>>mother and my father and my dog and J.R.R. Tolkien, without whom this entire 
>>genre would not exist. Heroic fantasy is all about going on a quest 
>>and the heros finding there strengths and ......." or some such guff.
> 
> 	An author should be obliged to explain HIS world.  Shadowrun
> has less than an explanation of anything.  One day people randomly
> mutated, the world collapsed, and the megacorporations moved in.
> Nice quick storyline no matter how lame it might be.  Gibson
> explains his world fairly well, I thought.  Any fantasy writer
> explains his world when he writes about it...not necessarily
> didactically:  "Uh, there's magic and faeries and gnifty dragons..."
> but certainly it would become obvious to the reader that there are
> magic and faeries and dragons in the author's book once he was done
> reading it.

You must not have read all the stuff I have.  In some of the
sourcebooks there are extremely complex explanations.  The even go
into how genes are affected by magic causing Unexplained Genetic
Expression.  

I think the point I'm trying to make, is that Shadowrun is a RPG, not
a literature movement or a series of books.

> 	Without explanations, a novel could very quickly become
> unintelligible:  "Jack frugged Bophur with a shimmyut seconds before
> scrambling aboard the blussuft megaglup.  They attached their safety
> harnesses and was soon frooping across the hyurl..."
> 	Of course the author could instead use more familiar
> terms..."Jack turned Bophur inside-out with a Predecessor energy
> weapon seconds before they scrambled aboard the faster-than-light
> starliner.  They attached their safety harnesses and were soon
> blinking across the galaxy..."
> 	Or whatever.  (If I'm babbling, forgive me... :)
> 
> 	I think that every author has an obligation to explain what
> the hell is going on in their work.  If they don't, reading their
> novel would be an incredible strain...
> 
>>Eh? I don't see this sort of thing, but no-one complains.
> 
> 	I don't think that's what we're worried about.  A gaming
> world needs some sort of history to set the precedence for what's
> going on in the game's "present."  Just throwing things at players
> and GM's is pretty sad.  What if I generated a fantasy world and in
> the first gaming module I introduced space marines weilding particle
> beam cannons and in the next one I introduced dragons and then
> dieties who required huge doses of heroine to stay conscious...
> 	Why do these things exist?  In a gaming world a GM expects
> to have some explanation for the world that is given to him.  If I
> make a character who is suspicious of anyone wearing black, I
> normally have a reason for it.  Characters and worlds made on
> complete whims tend not to be so fun...

IMHO, Shadowrun has been well thought out and a lot of time was put
into the design.  The subject is so complex that it takes several
books to explain it all.  To get a full explanation you need to read
at least The Grimoire, Virtual Realities and Shadowtech.
>>
>>[ And I doubt I'll ever get around to doing a .sig ]
>>
>>Stuart van Onselen
>>Rhodes University 
>>Grahamstown
>>South Africa
>>g91v3505@giraffe.ru.ac.za
> 
> 
-- 
		
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Invincibility depends on one's self;	   kucloak@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
  The enemy's vulnerability on him.	    bkreed@oread.cc.ukans.edu
 		  --Sun Tzu 		      Bryan Kennedy Reed
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~