Talk:Shadowrun/Archive 1

Archive 1

Separate pages for video games?

Does anybody think the Super Nintendo and Genesis versions of Shadowrun deserve their own pages? Both are hailed as great games (although usually by different groups of people as they are nearly opposite gameplay-wise), and have small cult followings, but neither was a real hit. --Furrykef 22:32, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Maybe they do, but that's not the point. The question isn't whether those pages should exist or not, but whether people are up to add content or not. We may agree on the creation of those pages, but someone has to start it. I haven't played any of those games, so there isn't much I can do myself. – Mackeriv 01:47, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you want to make the pages, I think it should be done, since the NES game, for instance, is quite different than the RPG. —Philosupial 07:38, 24 June 2004

Gibson

Gibson has had a big influence on the game and the genre. It's been so long since I've read Neuromancer I can't remember specificly what is used in the game aside from the idea of the Matrix. Ideas? Thoughts? psyco_path_industries 08:21, 6 Aug 2004 (EST)

The first two off the top of my head: the nuyen currency and the street samurai. NewYen in Neuromancer was the illegal script used in most unrecorded transactions and heavily used amongst the underworld, while the phoentically-similar nuyen is the global currency in SR. Molly Millions is the quintessential street samurai, in fact, is even called that at one point in the Gibson book. Her look was originally appropriated into the street samurai archetype in the first SR editions, i.e. surgically-implanted mirrorshades, retractable claws, boosted reflexes.--YoungFreud 05:42, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thinking in terms of what Gibson specificly created that have shown up in SR i'd offer SR's AI "winternight" (vs wintermute), and monofiliment weapons. Question how do we go about turning that these alussions into the citations requested?

Though it doesn't pertain to the pen and paper game, but for what it's worth, the Genesis game often asks you to pick up clients with names/pseudonyms like "Alan Turing"; one of these names is "Nero Manser". The SNES version's main character is named Jake Armitage. - Furrykef 03:27, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Erm, isn't Winternight from SR a terorist organisation - not an AI ??

As for ideas from Gibson incorporated into SR, I'd go with global computer networks, character Roles, Street Samurai, street level high technology.

193.243.227.1 (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Boston link

The Boston link could do with updating to point to the appropriate Boston article, but I'm not sure which it is. --John 23:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? WikidSmaht 07:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Magic?

Could someone who plays add a bit about magic? How it came around, how it blends with technology, etc.? A friend said I should study Shadowrun for a story i'm writing, but information on the backstory concerning magic is scarce. —WikidSmaht 18:18, 30 July 2005

Magic in Shadowrun just is. There really is no explanation on it's origins or how it came to be, but there are patterns. Historically, the global level of mana moves in 5000 year cycles (with the possibility of occasional spikes, like say the Dark Ages) with it very low in off cycles, and then in 2011 when the cycle changed and the mana levels shot straight up. Monsters showed up, people gave birth to elves and dwarfs, and occultists and mystics found that their rituals and spells showed very visible effects. A few years later, more creatures appeared and some people started turning into orks and trolls.

As for magic and technology, they really don't get along too well. A big thing in SR is a character's Essence rating, which shows how much of a character is natural. The idea is that the more Essence a character has, the stronger their spirit is connected to the world, and the more control over magic a mystically awakened character has. As someone replaces parts of their body with cyberware (replacing is the key word here), the more unnatural their body becomes and their Essence rating drops. A character must have a positive Essence rating to remain alive, or else there's not enough of the natural body for the spirit to attach to.

It is notable to mention that there is a procedure called cybermancy, where one's spirit is essentially "tricked" into thinking that there is enough of the body to stick around when in fact most of it has been replaced by cyberware. However, it is a very complex and expensive procedure that requires constant treatment and monitoring, and it creates a devastating effect upon one's emotional state and presence to the point where such subjects are fittingly labeled as "cyberzombies." In game terms, it allows characters to have so much cyberware that their Essence score goes into negative numbers. Of course, with all the logistics involved, it's really reserved for monster NPCs designed to wipe out high-level parties.

The big thing to remember that magic in Shadowrun has a major attachment to life and living things. Emotional and environmental states also play a big part as well, with strong emotions and environmental conditions leaving impacts upon the Astral Plane. Places that see much joy and are naturally clean can leave an area astrally bright and warm, such as churches, concert halls, parks, and natural preserves. However, places that see or have seen much pain and suffering or have become heavily polluted can become mystically toxic, even for centuries for come, such as waste dumps, prisons, battlefields, and concentration camps being among the worst.

Naturally, the best thing to do is read the main rulebook and the biggest magic sourcebook (being Magic in the Shadows for third edition). You might want to wait until the end of the month when fourth edition comes out, however. --Paul Soth 07:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

blink Thanks! That was awesome! Some of that should definitely go in the article. Having it clear to those not familiar with the subject is a good thing. WikidSmaht 07:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Just to make this even more complicated now, I have noticed that the magic section of the entry refers to "Hermetic", "Shamanic" and "Somatic". With 4th edition and the new magic book imminent SR is moving away from all magic being categorised into one of these three "traditions". The players handbook merely gave details for these three as they were the popular ones of the time. If you have even a look at the previews of the new Street Magic book http://www.shadowrunrpg.com/wordpress/?p=136 it's clear that we are moving to a state where there are a stack load more traditions, each "equals" in significance to the old three... This would likely change the format of the current Magic section eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.157.122 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 August 2006

You may want to look at the SR3 core rule book. Just in the beggining it explains alot about the magic of shadowrun--Lostfang 16:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Should information be included about Aspected magic users? Grendelthorns 13:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

4th edition

I notice 4th edition's made some radical changes to the rules (edited dicepools, changes in profiles, no more rule of six, simplified combat etc). Would it maybe be a good idea to add a dedicated section about it? —Aratos 18:39, 18 September 2005

I think a revision overview of what changed in each edition would be useful. DamienG 12:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems as though some comment about the number of design oversights in SR4 is warranted as part of the "what's changed" section. It's unusual that a book that says "Fourth Edition" has first-edition rules in it and, consequently, the number of oversights that are typical with first editions. However, some people may think this is irrelevant, or may not agree that there's a large error rate.

I also wonder whether the scale of changes in SR4 isn't so large as to warrant having two separate pages, one for SR4 and one for SR1-3 (plus one for an overview of Shadowrun in general). As it stands, the page is an odd mixture of the two systems. For example, the Star Wars d6 and Star Wars d20 games have their own pages (with a common "Star Wars role-playing game" summary page), and I'm not convinced that SR4 is more related to SR3 mechanistically than SWd20 is to SWd6. There doesn't seem to be all that much that can be said about the rules of one that doesn't have to be corrected when talking about the other.

Ichoran 13:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's definately a worthwhile idea, but I'm not personally familiar enough with anything but 4th Edition to make appropriate comparisons. —159.37.7.48 11:25, 12 May 2006

Books Listing

I'm worried by the recent idea to start listing all the books for the game. Do you really think Wikipedia is the place to be listing this information when we can just link to [1] Ben W Bell 13:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a free, comprehensive encylopedia. By its very nature all the information exists some place or another - Wikipedia is neither a source for original thought nor a repository of links. Whilst at the moment they are just lists of titles there is no reason why they won't be further expanded upon and covered in-depth. ISee Resident Evil and its history for an example. If the list gets too long we'll throw it out into a separate article. DamienG 14:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't help thinking that by not putting the books into any particular category of listing, it's confusing matters a touch. I mean, there are books there from all the editions, a lot of which are compatible up until 3rd edition and others which aren't. Maybe I'm just looking into it too far. I mean, pretty much all of them'll probably be replaced now anyway. Aratos 18:36 28 September 2005 (BST)

No I think I didn't make my thoughts clear on this, completely my mistake. The problem I feel with the list getting fuller is it will start to take over the entire article. Lets see how it goes, though it should be easy to finish the list, but I think it should be hived off to a separate article otherwise the page is just a massive list with some text at the top. Ben W Bell 18:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Here you are, have fun :) —mattness 14:48, 27 October 2005

• ROC Novels*

5078 Never Deal With A Dragon (Secrets of Power Trilogy #1) 5087 Choose Your Enemies Carefully (Secrets of Power Trilogy #2). 5145 Find Your Own Truth - (Secrets of Power Trilogy #3). 5189 Into the Shadows 5199 Streets of Blood 5210 2XS 5218 Changeling 5220 Never Trust An Elf 5302 Shadowplay 5310 Night's Pawn 5313 Striper Assassin 5365 Fade to Black 5367 Lone Wolf 5374 Preying for Keeps 5377 The Lucifer Deck 5427 Nosferatu 5445 Burning Bright 5448 Who Hunts the Hunter? 5495 House of the Sun 5496 Worlds Without End 5537 Just Compensation 5539 Black Madonna 5542 Dead Air 5593 Steel Rain 5628 Shadowboxer 5629 Stranger Souls 5630 Headhunters 5631 Clockwork Asylum 5674 Beyond the Pale (also 5710) 5709 Bloodsport 5710 Beyond the Pale (also 5674) 5711 Technobabel 5712 Wolf and Raven 5713 Psychotrope 5714 The Terminus Experiment 5741 Run Hard, Die Fast 5742 Crossroads 5749 The Forever Drug 5775 Ragnarock 5819 Tails You Lose 5839 The Burning Time

• FASA Sourcebooks*

7002 Shadowrun Gamemaster Screen 7003 Shadowrun Quick Start Rules 7100 Shadowrun (First Edition Miękka okładka) 7101 Shadowrun (First Edition Twarda okładka) 7102 SR1 GM Screen 7103 Sprawl Sites 7104 Street Samurai Catalog 7105 Paranormal Animals of North America 7106 The Grimoire 7107 Virtual Realities 7108 Rigger Black Book 7109 Shadowbeat 7110 Shadowtech 7112 Paranormal Animals of Europe 7113 Corporate Shadowfiles 7114 Fields of Fire 7115 Lone Star 7116 Prime Runners 7117 Bug City 7118 Corporate Security Handbook 7119 Cybertechnology 7120 Awakenings 7121 Threats 7122 Portfolio of a Dragon Dunkelzahns Secrets 7123 Underworld Sourcebook 7124 Cyberpirates 7125 Corporate Download 7201 Seattle Sourcebook 7202 Native American Nations Volume One 7203 London Sourcebook 7204 Germany Sourcebook 7205 Universal Brotherhood 7206 Neo-Anarchists Guide to North America 7207 Native American Nations Volume Two 7208 The Neo-Anarchists Guide to Real Life 7209 California Free State 7210 Tir Tairngire 7211 Tir na nOg 7212 Denver: The City of Shadows 7213 Aztlan 7214 Target: UCAS 7215 Target: Smugglers Havens 7216 New Seattle 7219 Target: Matrix 7301 DNA/DOA 7302 Mercurial 7303 Dreamchipper 7304 Queen Euphoria 7305 Bottled Demon 7306 Harlequin 7307 Dragon Hunt 7308 Total Eclipse 7309 Imago 7310 Elven Fire 7311 Ivy&Chrome 7312 One Stage Before 7313 Dark Angel 7314 A Killing Glare 7315 Celtic Double Cross 7316 Eye Witness 7317 Paradise Lost 7318 Divided Assets 7319 Double Exposure 7320 Harlequins Back 7322 Super Tuesday 7323 Shadows of the Underworld 7324 Predator and Prey 7325 Missions 7326 Mob War 7327 Blood in the Boardroom 7328 Renraku Arcology: Shutdown 7329 First Run 7330 Corporate Punishment 7331 Brainscan 7401 Sprawl Maps 7601 Into The Shadows 7701 High Tech and Low Life - The Art of Shadowrun 7900 Shadowrun Second Edition (hard cover) 7901 Shadowrun Second Edition (soft cover) 7902 SR2 GM Screen 7903 Grimoire Second Edition 7904 Virtual Realities 2.0 7905 Shadowrun Companion: Beyond the Shadows 7906 Rigger 2 7909 Matrix

• Fan Pro*

10650 Year of the Comet 10651 Target: Awakened Lands 10652 Threats 2 10653 Target: Wastelands 10654 Wake of the Comet 10655 Shadows of North America 10656 Shadowrun Companion 10657 New Seattle 10658 Magic in the Shadows 10659 Cannon Companion 10660 Shadowrun Third Edition 10662 Rigger 3 Revised 10663 Man and Machine 10664 State of the Art 2063 10665 Survival of the Fittest 10666 Dragons of the Sixth World 10667 Sprawl Survival Guide 10673 The Shadowrun Character Dossier 25002 Shadows of Europe 25003 Mr Johnsons Little Black Book 25004 State of the Art 2064 25006 Loose Alliance 25007 Shadows of Asia 25011 Shadows of Latin America 25014 System Failure 26000 Shadowrun Fourth Edition

Re: GURPS comparison

I intentionally removed the reference to the system being as flexible as GURPS because Shadowrun character creation ISN'T as flexible as GURPS. GURPS is designed to allow any kind of creature or character to be built under a certain number of points; Shadowrun limits player characters to encourage cohesiveness. As a comparison, GURPS devotes an entire book (in a pair of core books) to creating characters alone, while Shadowrun uses a few chapters mixed in with setting and game systems. Not to be detrimental--Shadowrun's system encourages cohesiveness and viability, wheras GURPS's encourages experimentation. I do apologize for removing the comment without due warning, though. Is it possible to change it now that I've explained why? Alderson Disc 22:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

But the system itself IS as flexable as GURPS, regardless of what they encoruage you to do...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.102.41 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 15 January 2006

The degree of flexiblity depends on which edition of Shadowrun one is talking about, and whether one is using the default or optional (SR Companion) methods of character creation. The Shadowrun system is skill-based rather than class-based, which increases flexibility, but I agree that character creation in GURPS is more flexible than character creation in any Shadowrun edition. Ichoran 05:21, 12 February 2006

Which is natural, since this is the Generic Universal Role-Playing System we're talking about - it's supposed to be more flexible than anything else out there. Empath 12:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Earthdawn?

Is Earthdawn REALLY the past of the Sixth World? I thought that was retconned away, or just "flavourful" speculation? MasterGrazzt 23:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is. It may not have originally been designed that way, but it became that way. In Shadowrun there is the dangers of the Horrors coming through again, in fact there was a big plot arc about them trying to come through early which resulted in Dunklezahns death. There are a lot of characters which appear in both, mainly the great dragons but also a few elves. Ben W Bell 08:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

it in the book worlds without end and a little bit in black madonna too also nomads are horrors.Ansolin 05:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the phrasing of the links to Earthdawn section from 'was retroactively linked to' in favor of 'is linked to.' Earthdawn was designed from the start to be linked the Shadowrun, and there was nothing retroactive about it. Also, considering that Earthdawn and Shadowrun are still linked, the past tense seemed odd. -18:42, September 9. 2007

As noted above, Earthdawn was designed to be the 4th World to Shadowrun's 6th World. The reason they were always coy about confirming this is that Microsoft owns a piece of the Shadowrun IP (Intellectual Property), and if they ever officially linked them in public, then Microsoft could claim it is all one IP and therefore that Microsoft owns part of Earthdawn. —MJBurrage • TALK • 03:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To my understanding Microsoft doesn't really "own" any of the Shadowrun property, it just has the sole ownership rights to producing electronic software based on the universe and several other FASA properties through its ownership of FASA Interactive. It doesn't have ownership of the IP itself or any of it. Ben W Bell talk 12:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is not a percentage thing (I.E. Microsoft does not own say 20% of Shadowrun), but rather that Microsoft owns all the computer/video game rights to Shadowrun through FASA Interactive. So Microsoft can do anything they want to or with Shadowrun in a computer game, but they have no say about non-computer games. If Earthdawn was offically part of the older Shadowrun IP then Microsoft could claim the same computer game rights for Earthdawn. —MJBurrage • TALK • 15:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And mine is that perhaps Microsoft perhaps did not own such rights when Earthdawn came out (mid 90's). In any case, it was announced, Earthdawn fans rejoiced, but not Shadowrun fans. Focus on the angle was phased out due to bad reception, afaik. Arasaka 02:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Riggers vs Deckers

I have begun reading through the fourth edition book and I am having trouble understanding the difference between these two seperate classes. Can someone please explain the difference to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.245.25 (talk • contribs) 2135, 3 January 2006

Um technically speaking in 4th edition there isn't really a difference, they have both been condensed into the Hacker character type. If you want some better answers to specific Shadowrun questions you're better off asking at Dumpshock Forums the Shadowrun forums. Ben W Bell 08:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There's enough of a difference between Riggers and Hackers in SR4 to warrant keeping them as seperate archetypes (rather than mashing them together.) Both use their commlinks in order to manipulate things via the wireless Matrix, however, Riggers tend to focus on the remote control of vehicles and drones, while Hackers tend to focus on manipulating the Matrix, as well as the code and the hosts within it. Also, Riggers tend to focus on the Electronic Warfare skill rather than Hacking. While there is still plenty of overlap between the two, I don't think putting them into one catch-all category is justifiable. Abschalten 14:50 EST, 25 January 2006

Riggers tend to do the following. Riggers control vehicles by jacking into them or via remote control deck. Riggers control drones by remote control deck. Most of the time when multiple vehicles and drones are run by the same Rigger (Or many riggers on one team) they form a vast tactical network providing bonuses to the Rigger, other vehicles and drones, and team members equipped with tactical computers. A little known fact about Riggers is that Riggers tend to be the head of all security inside buildings or facilities and not Deckers. This is mostly because Riggers are used to receiving data from multiple sources at once and dealing with information sharing. Remote turrets, guard squads, traps, doors and elevators (Just to name a few) are the security Rigger's tools. Woe to the Shadowrunners that go up against a well prepared Rigger.

Now a Decker on the other hand, they have their hands full with the Matrix. They are arguably the masters of the Matrix. They can write code on the fly or have programs that can do almost anything. They can enter a system, locate data, view cameras, steal plans, decrypt and read data, open doors, and a thousand other things. If it is connected to the Matrix chances are a Decker can manipulate, destroy, or steal it. Deckers can "make" a back door in programming making it easier to enter a particularly secure area in the future. Deckers commonly act as information brokers; If you have the nuyen they can get you in the know, and quick. If the Decker doesn't know about what it is you seek, they can find out, after all every thing in the matrix is at their disposal. Building blue prints, dossiers on criminals or Shadowrunners, Lonestar employee records, and megacorp paydata are all obtainable to a good Decker.--Lostfang 16:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

4th Edition eliminated the term "Decker"; Deckers were so called because of their cyberdecks, and absorbing the 'deck's hacking capability into the standard commlink made the term obsolete. So now they're just "hackers". Technically. ;)

MurderMunkey 4:14, 9 September 2006

Remote Control Decks were also removed. The closest remaining is the Control Rig, a piece of cyberware that just gives you a bonus on controlling drones and vehicles. And possibly a riggable security setup, but the rules for those are almost entirely absent from the 4E core. [[unsigned|64.81.69.13|14:55, 27 September 2006}}

Actually, by that logic MurderMunkey, "new" Deckers would be called Commers or Linkers [from Commlink]

I remem reading that the main reason Deckers and Riggers have been rolled into 1 is that they were the least popular Roles - taking too much time and effort to be used in a Session

193.243.227.1 (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Theoretical Trolls

This might be of lesser importance, but does anyone have a link explaining what a theoretical troll is? I tried to google, but found nothing but copies of this wikipedia page. The term doesn't seem to be used anywhere else on the net. I don't doubt the concept exists, played a campaign with a damn near unkillable troll in 1st edition, but does it have the wrong name here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.166.164 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 8 January 2006

A Theoretical Troll refers to the unfortunate tendency for some players to "min-max", which means to build a character that stays within the letter of the rules, but they exploit every little possible loop hole to make the most powerful characters possible. In First Edition Shadowrun, it seemed as though the publishers needed to reinforce just how brick-wall-like Trolls were, and they unintentionally built exploits into the system for them. However, I would like to point out that Theoretical Trolls exist only by the good graces of each individual GM. No game system can cover all the bases, and since no RPG will ever claim to have indisputable rules, the GM's must be "middle managers", and enforce their own rules, and their own world. I hope this helped.

~Tim 15:46, 18 January 2006

That said, it's worth noting that some systems are easier to exploit than others. One of the main trends in games as editions progress is that areas which are too easy to exploit are discovered and modified. It's of benefit to GMs and players alike for the GM not to have to be the one keeping the Theoretical Troll theoretical--it's work that the rules should do for you. So it's sensible to view Theoretical Trolls as a bad thing, all else being equal.

~Ichoran 05:14, 12 February 2006

A user called Max Overload removed the Flaws section (which included the Theoretical Troll) on 2007 January 22 at 13:57 with no explanation. Any objections to reverting the deletion? Urshanabi 00:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Examples of 'Theoretical Trolls' in Shadowrun include: Shapechanging mages that go from eagle to rhinoceros in mid flight to squish people; Steel Lynx combat drones (in any situation); and limousines tanked out with 6 points of armour under the old system (enough to stop a panther assault cannon shell). Every rule system is prone to abuse in weird ways. It's not worth commenting about specifically, except to relate a funny joke.
-Martin Gotthard 220.253.165.90 (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Where the frag are archetype description?

Well? I can't find good definition of riggers, deckers etc. :( ~mattness 07:39, 18 January 2006

Riggers (in SR3) are people who specialize in vehicle operations. They are specialized due to specific cyberware that they have had installed in themselves. This cyberware consists mainly of a "Vehicle Control Rig", which is a high-essence unit that lets you "plug in" directly to the vehicle and you effectively become that vehicle, with all of your five senses being tied directly to the vehicle... you feel the road as if you were the car.

Deckers are what we call today "Hackers". They use a "Cyberterminal" (colloquially known as a "deck", hence their name). They are the ones you turn to when you want computer systems hacked into, basically. Fourth Edition makes it MUCH easier for any character to run in the "Matrix", which is what the Global Internet is called in Shadowrun (this name predates Matrix the movie). I hope this helps. Any other definitions you'd like? Oh, and by the way, both Deckers and Riggers have effectively been replaced by 4th Edition Hackers... as in they use the same hardware/software/units to accomplish thier tasks, minus a much smaller-essence-cost control rig. This is a good thing, because prior to 4th Edition, riggers were mostly ignored or NPCd due to the huge sacrifices players would have to deal with to play one.

P.S. You can find a lot more about the different stereotypical shadowrunner types on pg. 11 of Shadowrun, 3rd edition. I think that's what you were asking for in the first place.

~Tim 17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tim, Thank you greatly (I knew, what deckers & riggers are. But I need good definition to explain this to folks in Poland). But why, for G... sake there is no fine definition on wiki?!

Wish you best ~mattness 17:31, 30 January 2006

http://members.tripod.com/~MegaPunx/rpg/shadowrun.html - under shadowrunrun types are pretty good IMHO definition of runner types. Does anybody will add something like that to wiki?

~mattness 19:42, 14 February 2006

See rigger-decker above that should help.--Lostfang 16:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)