Talk:Shadowrun

message: I disagree with this proposed merger. If you merge that in then you need to have any future Shadowrun specific items in this article and it will get too large. The page is already getting large and some bits need splitting off. Maybe move it into a Races of Shadowrun article with the rest of the race information off the main page, but don't put it into the main article. Ben W Bell 08:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it could be merged into the HMHVV article (which covers Shadowrun vampirism, of which the Dzoo is a variant).  I'm going to propose that link in the afor mentioned article. Donovan Ravenhull 15:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Dzoo-noo-qua

message: The following sentence is in the article:
:Magic is the element that separates Shadowrun from other cyberpunk roleplaying games.
First of all, I didn't know that there were other cyberpunk roleplaying games.  If so, then some of this text should link to a category of such games, or if there are very few, link to individual games.  If you are including any of the universal RPGs in the cyberpunk category, then those will also support magic.  This is just a request for a repair. Val42 17:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a small bracketed section to list a few others. I've also created a new Cyberpunk role-playing games category. Ben W Bell talk 06:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cyberpunk RPGs

message: Wouldn't it be better to upload this larger cover image?
I don't know if it's acceptable under Wikipedia's copyright policy (or what low-resolution means), but there's already a large version of the 3rd edition cover. --70.143.33.216 02:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourth Edition picture

message: guys, I have a request. My English is too poor and wiki skills to lame, but Findley did very much for Shadowrun. If you don't know - he's dead (died in 2004 iirc). Could anybody be so kind and made an entry about him? TIA --mattness 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added what I could but my wiki skills are fresh and lame. Can anyone help me out? throw you sig on it if you want :)--Lostfang 16:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nigel D. Findley]] entry request

message: The Seventh World is due to begin on April 4, 7137 AD.  Has anybody done any stories or scenarios set at or near this date?  Would anybody have any interest in such scenarios?  The Seventh World would end in about the year 12,263 AD. Is there any interest in scenarios set in that year?
I'm not volunteering, I'm just wondering. Thanks.
:)--NotWillDecker 17:01 18 August 2006
::dont think so wouldent it be magic free anyway (little boring).Ansolin 06:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me for any broken etiquette as I am a new editor, but this seems unrelated to the Shadowrun page in general, and perhaps better suited to a forum dedicated to discussing playing the game.Lotus Watcher (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Seventh World]]

message: Does anyone have an info on this game by the makers of Heroclix? I understand it was similar to other clix games but used action figure sized figures rather than 30 mm ministure size. It would great to see a little on this added to the article. - Waza 23:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a start at Shadowrun Duels. —MJBurrage • TALK • 07:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shadowrun Duels

message: It's funny, unless it's a joke. I just killed the links to Paul Hume and Tom Dowd in the infobox, because apparently, those links led to music personlities, not RPG designers. Now, I wonder if both homonyms having bios as noteworthy figures in the world of music, one as a journalist and scholar, the other as an engineer and producer is a coincidence, of if somebody made a bad joke or what. If anybody who knows enough about the Shadowrun authors to make a bio, or add the RPG related stuff to the article of the musicians if in fact it was really them, that would be appreciated. My own knowledge on the matter being quite insufficient. --Svartalf 10:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's just a coincidence. Paul Hume and Tom Dowd are in the family of people responsible for making Shadowrun what it is now. I assume that someone linked to those pages without looking. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about them to create decent bio pages. EvilCouch 06:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul Hume and Tom Dowd

message: I'm looking for a quote I saw once pertaining to Shadowrunning.  I don't recall who said it or the exact wording, but it was to the effect that as your run was ending, someone else's was just starting, and you might be the target.  Can anyone clarify this a bit? Grendelthorns 14:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote in question is attributed to "Kirk Hoff, street mage" on page 180 in SR2 and goes like this "Never relax. Your run might be over, but someone, somewhere, is just starting his, and the target could be you." It may appear in other editions or source books, but I knew about where it was in SR2 and checked it in my book. EvilCouch 15:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote?

message: Interpreted strictly, a product with "positive sales" has sold at least one copy.  So saying "sales are positive" can work as a wry geekily-humorous way of saying that you can't say anything better about sales.  But mostly, it's a marketing term that means absolutely nothing while trying to engender positive feelings about a product.  Whether humorous or marketing-speak, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, so I have removed it.
However, sales numbers are quite relevant.  Traditionally, it's been almost impossible to get numbers on quantities sold, placed in the context of the market, for RPGs.  If anyone can find a source for that kind of information (i.e. something that could be referenced), it would be nice to have it in the article.  Things like sizes of print runs could also be useful.  Does anyone have any leads?
Ichoran 13:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not find the source, but I clearly remember reading an interview with one of the current writers, in which he revealed that the sales of fourth edition have been very good, and that all of the delays were related to FanPro USA not having any dedicated production staff.  The writers were having to do both jobs. —MJBurrage • TALK • 18:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The out-of-print problems and the pre-out-of-print sales rate may not have been related--it is unfortunate that the writers were having to do too much production work.  However what do "very good" sales mean?  Good compared to what?  Sales almost always go up when a new edition is released.  Did the interview give any solid details, e.g. were the sales better than for SR3 (either in absolute terms or relative to the size of the RPG market)? Ichoran 16:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article did not give sales numbers.  From the context, I took it to mean above expectations and profitable (no small feat in the RPG business).  Analogies could be made to West End Games, where Star Wars (d6) was very successful, but not enough to compensate for mismanagement of other operations under the same ownership as WEG, which led to WEG losing the Star Wars license. —MJBurrage(T•C) 17:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sales were positive"

message: I don't see Ral Partha figurines in this box (they were made for paper RPG, but produced by other company than FASA). I couldn't find info about Grenadier series (it was made by RalPartha?) - maybe SR fans could explain it on wikipedia? Thanks in advance.
mattness  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.148.137 (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Figurines - Ral Partha & Grenadier

message: I would like to see a novel /significant game features section in this article. The features that make shadowrun stand out from the competition.
When I first started playing SR way back when 1st ed came out, what really captured my imagination was the fusion of magic and cyberpunk, and also significantly the advancing timeline concept.
Initially at first, this was fairly formally a 1 year-per-year concept, keeping SR 61 always years in the future. (FASA / FanPro later departed from this and jumped forward several time increments). Significantly, it allowed for the publisher to include game world plot development within their rules supplements as an effective hook for sales growth and repeat business. I remember anxiously awaiting the next supplement to see what was changing, and what the fallout was from previous game world developments. The quality of creativity was also very high. 
While I obviously haven't played every game in the world, this stands out to me as a fairly novel and unique feature. In my opinion it's worth including as a standout feature of the game, along with other ones (eg the relatively flat cap of character skills, compared to the exponential style of D&D)
PS - The Earthdawn / Shadowrun crossover was acknowledged but never officially sanctioned. They had two separate marketable product lines that they didn't want to cross-contaminate. In essence: Guidance from developers in response to questions was that Earthdawn was the deep backstory and we were allowed to use it for formation of concepts, but that no Wormskull / other horror was ever going to pop from Aztechnology in an official supplement (Damnit!). This may have been retconned out with the sale of the Earthdawn product line to another developer.
-Martin Gotthard 220.253.165.90 (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, licensed novels (part of the game's canon) made the Earthdawn/Shadowrun connection (as connected Fourth/Sixth Worlds) explicit.  The current publishers maintain such a connection as part of the background of both games, although at a level that is generally unimportant to the play of either.  The current publishers of Earthdawn also plan to release Equinox a game set in the Eighth World and hence the future of both. —MJBurrage(T•C) 05:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Novel game features (Primarily Advancing Timeline)

message: One editor recently commented that much of the article takes place with in-game POV.  But, when one is describing, at length, a fictional game, to do otherwise seems hideously awkward to me.  I assume that the fiction guidelines are there so that it is clear that fictional material is fictional, and to maintain constant style.  However, unlike in many fictional works, there is a clear "now" and "past" in the Shadowrun game, so I think that using present tense throughout is confusing.  (It is, of course, important that it be clear that the content is all regarding a fictional game.)  I invite alternate points of view!
Ichoran (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro edit is good, but further work is needed in-article. Articles about games are not meant to be based around a reiteration of the game background; all material should be presented from a real-world perspective, and the focus should be on how the game has impacted society - its influences, innovations, and references by others. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: In-world perspective

message: A few years back I placed a link for The Shadowrun Proboards  however today I noticed it had been removed. It's a play by post site and contains basic info for Chargen and active discussions.
Why was it removed? Note, I am not the sites owner.
CrimsonD (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Shadowrun Proboards (removed link)

message: All right, we've had a decent amount of opinions churning over the past few days and I'd like to summarize as best as I can about where we stand and what we can do from this point. 
Points of interest
#The external links section of the Shadowrun article could stand some improvements.
#The is no debate over the inclusion of the official homepage
#There is some debate over the inclusion of Dumpshock. 
#There is much debate over the inclusion of S-Run.
#There is the possibility of other external links.
:*The debate against Dumpshock's inclusion includes:
:#The homepage of Dumpshock does not contain any immediately useful information, nor is it clear what part of Dumpshock a user should go to for a specific query.
:*The debate for  Dumpshock's inclusion includes:
:#It has heavy involvement by the developers of Shadowrun.
:#It contains forums for Shadowrun, which have become the de facto official forums.
:*The debate against S-Run's inclusion includes:
:#The S-Run website is not encyclopedic and does not add information.
:#The concept of S-Run's online play may be confusing for the uninitiated.
:#Several of the proponents of S-Run's inclusion are affiliated with the site.
:*The debate for  S-Run's inclusion includes:
:#The IRC channel is likely the most active RPG channel in existence.
:#The IRC channel is a pool of readily accessible information to assist players in understanding game rules.
:#There is a large amount of fan-made material, including character sheets and logs of Shadowrun games that were run online.
:*Possible other links include:
:# - Official collection of external links
:# - Fan-maintained collection of external links
Possible actions Each option in this list is intended to be separate from the others. i.e. supporting one does not mean that you cannot support another. If one of the proposals would be amenable to you if it were modified, please state so in your opinion brief. If you have a reasoned opinion (for or against) one or more of the inclusions, please state so and why. For those that have not participated in a Wikipedia consensus discussion, the traditional etiquette is to voice your opinion (Support or Oppose), with any possible modifiers to clarify your opinion (e.g. Strong or Weak). Examples: Strong support and Weak oppose. Please indent opinions to the right of the possible actions and comments to the right of opinions. Remember: this is not a vote. Opinions need to include reasons. EvilCouch (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An excellent, concise summary. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

text: *Support - The amount of information that it includes and the active involvement by the developers clinches this for me. This would be a strong support, except that it is true that Dumpshock's main site is news that is not helpful for someone who does not already understand Shadowrun. Linking to the Sixth World Wiki might be a better move. It's discouraged by WP:ELNO#EL12, but is relatively stable. EvilCouch (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

text: *Oppose - Forums aren't encyclopedic. Appropriate detailed links are already given from the official site. Would support a link to a developer controlled page of details on Shadowrun if there is such a page on Dumpshock. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

text: *Oppose  It is not possible under Wikipedia's rules for any website to become a de facto official link:  Either it is controlled by the entity -- in which case is it the "de jure" official link -- or it is not controlled by the entity, in which case it is not an official link for Wikipedia's purposes.   As an example of control, the company that makes the game could unilaterally decide to remove a damaging message from a forum that they control; they could not force its removal from a website that they don't control (although they could "request" or "encourage" its removal, and bring all legal means of persuasion to bear in support of their request).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

text: *Support - Whether you call it "de facto" or "de jure", the people behind Shadowrun are the people behind Dumpshock. The forums at Dumpshock are the place to go for answers from the writers and developers to rules questions.  I.E., while forums are normally discouraged as external links, Dumpshock gets the "Recognized Expert" exception. —MJBurrage(T•C) 02:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

text: *Weak oppose - If we could link to IRC channels, this would be a strong support, but as it is, it's not an exceptionally useful website. EvilCouch (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

text: *Oppose - The article doesn't discuss an online version of the game. Could consider whether it is notable enough for its own article or if the current article should be expanded. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

text: *Weak oppose - If there was official sanction of the site, or recognition from neutral and citable third party sources it would be "weak support". —MJBurrage(T•C) 02:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

text: *Support including the official collection of links. As link repositories go, it's pretty solid and is maintained by the developers. EvilCouch (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

text: *Oppose - The official site shouldn't have two links. The fan page isn't complete as described above. Would support a good directory site if we could find one. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

text: * Oppose adding (yet) another link to the official website.  WP:EL strongly discourages having more than one link to any given website.  We have to assume that our readers know how to click on links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

text: *Weak Support for including the official collection of links (indented under the existing official link) – I could see an argument for not including both this link and Dumpshock (since Dumpshock constitutes a majority of the links).  But one or the other should be here. —MJBurrage(T•C) 02:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: External links debate summary and options

message: For many years, the Dumpshock Forum (http://forums.dumpshock.com/) was the de facto official board for Shadowrun (enough so that it was mentioned as such in the published game books). However, since 2010 there has been an actual official board, hosted by the publisher (http://forums.shadowrun4.com/). This effectively replaces Dumpshock as an official source of information about the game and game world. I just noticed that another editor has updated the external links accordingly, but thought confirmation of the reason for the change here was appropriate given the past discussion. —MJBurrage(T•C) 17:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that, and I'm about to remove it (and not replace it with the Dumpshock.) Reasoning, it's a subsite of the main site, and thus shouldn't be in the External links as it's accessible from the main page already linked. Canterbury Tail talk 21:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Official forum

message: In section "Fourth edition changes", we state:
:For example, up to this point, cursing had been illustrated with a variety of colorful made-up words, such as "drek", "frag", and "slot". FanPro eschewed these in SR4 (to some player complaint, as many fans believed this added social color to the game) and decided to use their contemporary, real-world counterparts.
However, "drek" is not a made-up cuss word, it is a real world Yiddish cuss-word. It literally means "faeces"; see List of English words of Yiddish origin. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: teensy quibble on cursing

message: "The most noticeable difference between the Matrix in the 2070s and the earlier editions is that wireless technology has become completely ubiquitous." The meaning of this claim is unclear, as there is no such thing as incomplete ubiquity. The statement should be clarified with examples and proper English usage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.157.102 (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic English

message: Let's step through the changes I made.  1) The current (at this moment) main Shadowrun book is set in 2072 because of when it was published.  They're not going to come out with a main book every year, nobody would buy them that frequently (since most of it wouldn't change).  As you can see at http://www.shadowrun4.com/missions/gamemasters.shtml the official stance is that the game is set 65 years in the future.  2) I mention the extraterritoriality that megacorporations have.  "Ok, they have armies," someone new to Shadowrun might think, "But the government can always roll in and enforce the law, right?"  Nope.  3) This is Shadowrun and yet the main intro doesn't even mention cyberware, bioware, or magic?  Those are practically the cornerstones of the Shadowrun world.  You're right, though the "obviously" isn't encyclopedic, I'll take it out.  4) I defined "shadowrun" as "missions undertaken by deniable assets".  5) I deleted the "sinless" reference.  Sin, to most people, means an act that violated a morale rule.  Most SINless Shadowrunners sin all the time, so I thought that an explanation of what a SIN was should wait until later in the article when it could be explained in more depth.  6) Likewise, the "chance of a new life" doesn't quite mean what people completely unfamiliar with Shadowrun might presume it means, so I took it out.  7) I also felt that a discussion on PC/GM dynamics should be preserved for later in the article, given the wide variety of possible scenarios for a Shadowrun adventure. Banaticus (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Slowed down now, new books are only 62 years out. State of the Art 2073 has just been published and all the other recent releases have been dated in the books as 2073. Canterbury Tail talk 03:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial intro revision

message: There's a bit in the discussion of the 4th edition mechanics about them being "not coincidentally" similar to the new World of Darkness system. This seems, as far as I can tell, a baseless assumption.
Similarly, under "Influences", there is a connection made between the faux swearing of Shadowrun and Battlestar Galactica which also seems to have been made without any evidence to back it up. For example, the universe of Judge Dredd also has similar terminology, and as a whole is a much closer match to the setting of Shadowrun than BSG is.
Both of these strike me as original research, and should probably be changed. Kelvingreen (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right. The WoD comparisons there is no evidence for, and there are plenty of other RPG rule systems that use similar mechanics. Faux swearing has existed for a long time, and Battlestar Galactica (the new series) has no connection to Shadowrun. If it's not referenced we can't draw a comparison, so feel free to edit it out. Canterbury Tail talk 11:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Some dodgy assumptions

message: @Canterbury Tail Regarding this, the image looked fine to me. Anything 100% canon will be copyrighted, so it's just the question of whether we allow fan art or not. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a generic elf with some funky headphones, ears that are too large and no neck at all just some coiled metal. It screams generic scifi elf, there's nothing that says Shadowrun or makes any suggestive connection to Shadowun and the details of the prompt even support that with "Lord of the Rings" and the style of an artists who hasn't illustrated for Shadowrun. The details of the image by the uploader are clearly not intended to represent Shadowrun. As a result there's no connection. It's like uploading a generic spaceship and saying it's fan art for Star Wars. Or a picture made for Cyberpunk 2020 and saying it's Shadowrun. Canterbury Tail talk 13:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Canterbury Tail I hear you, but I wonder if "better this than nothing" wouldn't work for now. I am sure there is better fan art out there, and we can eventually have AI generate it for us (assuming we would accept any fan art at all?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Images aren't decorative, they need to serve a specific purpose in improving the article. There's no such thing as better this than nothing, especially when the this is something that isn't even about the article subject. Would we put a generic picture of a human in the article and say it's a Shadowrun human? No of course we wouldn't. So why would we put a generic picture of a scifi elf in it and say it's related?  Canterbury Tail talk 14:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: But how can we get a non-generic, non-copyright image? And it's debatable at what point artsy images move from being decorative to informative. Note, I am not saying we have to restore that particular image, but I wonder what you would consider acceptable? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get me wrong it's an interesting question to ponder, and I honestly don't have an answer. This is something that I think needs a larger discussion at the Wikipedia level on images, is fan art acceptable? Is it OR or synthesis? These are interesting questions that this page on its own likely can't answer. For the question of AI art specifically, I think WP:COPYRIGHT needs to answer the question of whether it's copyrighted, copyright violations or non-copyrightable before that one can go further. I know it's a major concern in the RPG industry right now with most publishers banning AI art due to copyright issues and lots of research finding occasional copyrighted material inside them, but that is definitely not a question I or this page can answer. Canterbury Tail talk 00:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Canterbury Tail Good points. I asked on Commons re copyright and was directed to :Commons:AI generated media. It seems that AI art is generally allowed, but not when it is "intentionally derivative". I'd interpret it here as a generic cybered elf is ok, but a clearly identified Harlequin would not be ok (side note: I think Commons does allow intentionally derivative cosplay...). WP:FANART is not a thing (link?) yet, so maybe some community-wide RfC on acceptability of fan art would be a good idea, if we really care to devele into this deeper. The ease with which AI can generate fan art does suggest this (addition of AI generated fan art to various articles) will be a more common occurence in the future. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

text: PS. Just a randomd datapoint: Honorverse has a fan-made map (that has been there since I think forever). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

text: PPS. :commons:Category:Shadowrun (tabletop RPG). (Some images are mine, and I don't claim they are good quality...). It's really an interesting question if we want no image at all, given the choice of generic fanart or also very generic cosplay? :) Btw, the one image I think might be best to add would be :File:Gen Con Indy 2008 - artists (Shadowrun).JPG - an illustrator holding a copy of a SR book they illustrated? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm I think that photo would have a hard time staying in the article due to WP:IMAGERELEVANCE. The artist isn't the subject, and it would be undue to call them out in the article just to have a photo, and the Shadowrun content is next to nothing. Canterbury Tail talk 08:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  AI art