NEWS

Attracted by SH4 - Can you give some insights?

  • 4 Replies
  • 2696 Views

Artemis Entreri

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 25
« on: <04-13-18/1858:53> »
Hey! I'm a happy SH5 GM and even I still get one half of what I'm doing (ahah kiddin') I was taking a look at the game's history and while SH5 seems to have made things more "compact", I'd like to here some honest opinions and feedbacks.

How'd you compare Sh4 to other editions and Sh5 specifically? Would an attempt to go back would be a disaster or do you think Sh4 has still some goodness to deliver?

Write as much as you like, I don't mind reading. 🤘

Tecumseh

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3938
« Reply #1 on: <04-20-18/1349:09> »
Hey Artemis.

As you can tell, the "Previous Editions" board doesn't get much traffic.

I've been playing Shadowrun for 25 years now and, in my opinion, the rule mechanics have improved with each edition. (The flavor/tone of the game world is a separate question.) I have liked each edition, and I'll be the first to say that 5th Edition isn't perfect and could be improved, but I still think there's been an upward trajectory in the quality of the game mechanics over the years.

(Others will certainly disagree with me. If you were to post this question on Dumpshock - a haven of traditionalists - half the responses would say that SR3 was the pinnacle of the franchise while the other half would argue for some hybrid of SR4 and SR5.)

There is relatively little than I prefer in SR4 over what's in SR5. Again, this is all my opinion of what improved in SR5:
+ Chargen is harder to optimize (this is good)
+ Initiative is more fluid, with more Interrupt actions to add strategy
+ Spellcasting is more balanced (Stunbolt is no longer an automatic "I win" button)
+ Decking/hacking is better defined
+ Armor has been simplified while damage codes are better balanced
+ Limits help keep a lid on dice pool inflation

From SR4, some of the things I miss include a handful of adept-specific powers and optional rules. I prefer SR4's approach to Advanced Lifestyles over SR5's. Some people prefer the gear prices from SR4, especially when it comes to hacking/decking. Technomancers have taken a significant step backward in SR5, which is unfortunate. Mystic Adepts took a giant leap forward in SR5, going from broken (useless) to broken (too useful).

I really enjoyed SR4 while I was playing it, but I would never go back now that we're on SR5. Again, SR5 has plenty of opportunities to improve further, but on the whole it is still a significant improvement (in my opinion).

Marcus

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2802
  • Success always demands a greater effort.
« Reply #2 on: <04-20-18/1440:55> »
4th was a fine game. It has many issues, in that it's inherently very poorly balanced. It has most of the holder loop holes developed in 3rd that were gotten rid of in 5th. One of the biggest issues in 4th was the destruction of the Decker as archtype. Cellphone hacking just to simple the whole archtype was replace by custom cellphones running custom OS, used by agent built in on board.

Stunbolt, or the old simple simple double tap. Hell on wheels deadly.
*Play-by-Post color guide*
Thinking
com
speaking

Magnaric

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 225
« Reply #3 on: <04-20-18/1500:17> »
You know, if you had asked me this question a year ago, I'd have easily said that the massive editing/errata issues in 5th made it not as good as 4th edition. But now that more books and updates and such have come out...the pros are starting to outweigh the cons for me.

My group started in 4E, and the campaign is almost done now(been going on for 3 years roughly). I like 4E. But even I can admit is has its own issues that 5E did largely reduce, if not eliminate entirely. Limits is a good example, so there isnt nearly as much of the mini-game "the guy with 30+ dice wins". Same thing with power bloat. I'm one of the few GMs that doesn't mind the military book War!, but even I'll admit there is some stuff in the books that should never be in the hands of most players. Don't even get me started on how comically cheap and easy to get Tacnets were in 4E.

As people have said, 5E still has issues. It has work to do. It needs some balancing(too much magic right now, not enough tech), and some of the rules are a tad wonky(foundations confusing amirite?). But if you rembe the golden rule of "The rules exist to support the narrative, the narrative doesn't exist to support the rules", then I'd day 5E is the way to go.

As long as you can apply a little Handwavium when needed, and everyone us having fun? 5E is good. It's definitely what I'll be suggesting we use for our next game.
"Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything."
-Wyatt Earp

Shadowjack

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 1061
« Reply #4 on: <08-13-18/2248:25> »
I just moved back to SR4A and I couldn't be happier. SR5 was a downgrade, in my opinion of course, SR4A feels more complete and solid, the rules make sense and are easier to understand. SR5 has a ton of confusing elements, way too much complexity, and the core book had tons of issues that kind of ruined the game for me for a while. I switched back to SR4A and suddenly I'm having a blast again.
Show me your wallet and I'll show you a man with 20 fingers.