From: cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: ShadowRun HEROIC??? (was Re: Burn, GURPS...)
Date: 26 Jan 1993 08:50:28 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: mickey.cc.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan25.231928.7328@news.columbia.edu> jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner) writes:
>>jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>>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. 
>	Well - *attracting* munchkins doesn't make a system neccessarily 
>bad, 

It's a check mark against it, in my book.

and it's not just munchkins who like playing in an already-made universe 
>(ask any Amber player). 

Amber's a literary universe; rather different than one custom-built for a
particular gaming style. 

>	The question is, does SR *make* munchkins by its style? I don't know. 
>I do know that SR attracts many more beginners than GURPS, and that 
>munchkins are more often beginners - so its not suprising that one finds 
>more munchkins in SR games. 

This is a very valid point; I have noticed that lots of AD&D-types move up
to SR as their first non-TSR game. 
However, most of the SR players that I've met who want more than combat tend to
move to other games. (CP2020, GURPS CP, et al.) <shrug> Again. Your milage may
vary. 

>	Let's take a typical story - maybe "Johnny Memory" by Gibson. It 

"Johnny Mnemonic"

>starts with an armed meeting in a bar, an illicit courier (read shadowrunner)

If little Johnny, the man with the silicon in his head, is a shadowrunner,
then I'm Rush Limbaugh. Johnny's a pawn, an incompetant with an enhancement
that lets him make money. No more.

>attempts to get his money with a shotgun. Some strange woman shows up out 
>of nowhere to save him. A super-powered assassin kills their prisoner and 
>disappears. Etcetera. And it ends with Molly fighting hand-to-hand with 
>the assassin in single combat. (And this is the *good* CP stuff).

Actually, I consider "JM" to be one of Gibson's weakest works. It's got WG's
style, but none of the depth one finds in his other stories. It's saving 
grace is Johnny's realization of his use as a tool, and his start on a 
journey into becomming his own person. 

>	The *plot* is typical of cinema (R-rated, of course). What makes 
>it cyberpunk is the attitude and the style. 

What makes it cyberpunk is it's writing style, characterization, and plot. And
while "JM"'s plot bears some resemblance to common cultural entertainment (this
is a part of cyberpunk as well), it's not 'cinematic' in the sense I was 
talking about above, which has more to do with the characters being larger-
than-life and with almost complete plot invulnerability.

>>I also think the background is crap. It's derivative, unoriginal, full of 
>>munchkin-bait, and, most importntly, it's -NOT- cyberpunk. 
>	Well, it never claimed to be pure cyberpunk - it never billed 
>itself as a simulation of cyberpunk literature.

Actually, it did. Am I the only person who remembers all the ads about the 
new 'cyberpunk meets magic' game?

 I would agree that it 
>is considerably different than the majority of CP literature that is out 
>there. Is this neccessarily bad? No. 

No, but I get really really sick of people calling it cyberpunk, when it's 
-not-. It's completely lacking any soul (IMHO), and has all of the trappings
of CP but none of the depth.

>	Well, I think one of the primary causes and reasons for this 
>group is that gamers are not a homogenous mass. My experiences with gamers 
>at U of Chicago was considerably different than here at Columbia. Different 
>people may see very different games using the same system. 

I definately think this is the case. I would also not be surprised if the
general quality of RPG campaigns run/played in by Usenet people is quite a
bit higher than that of the average gamer. (ELITISM ALERT!)

>	The only times I have seen SR games have been good, actually. 
>Richard Garfinkle out in Chicago was running one (hi, Ron); and my friend 
>Marc ran one down in Baltimore - and they were both highly non-munchkin. I 
>don't think this is representative, however - I would probably guess that 
>most SR campaigns are very much like you describe. 

<nods> Actually, I'll be fair. -Most- campaigns, of whatever game, tend to be
unimpressive to outsiders. It's just that, in my experience, SR tends to 
attract the kind of gaming style/gamer that I stopped doing AD&D games at 
conventions in order to avoid.

-- 
    "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