[DragginSPADE]

So I haven't really been playing tabletop for the past 15 years (good grief where does the time go?)  and am hoping to get back into Shadowrun.  I've read most of the SR4 and SR5 books by now but I haven't had a chance to PLAY either of them.  Also I wasn't really paying attention to the forums when edition changeovers happened. 

So I'm curious:  To those who've played and/or GM'd BOTH SR4 and SR5, which do you prefer?  Why?  Even if you strongly prefer one, is there an area the other version handled better?  Inquiring lapsed vets want to know.

[Herr Brackhaus]

There are pros and cons to both, in my opinion.

SR4 definitely has a more fleshed out ruleset with significantly more details, rules, gear, and so on. The downside is that some of those rules are ineffective, complicated, or just downright broken.

SR5 on the other hand is still being expanded upon, so a lot of the depth of the previous edition(s) is currently missing. I also personally dislike some of the directions the writers took with 5th, specifically the way the Matrix got less scientific and more mystical and how tech in general has been treated with regards to interaction with magic. Mechanically speaking, though, SR5 is a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned; most of the rules are streamlined so it's easier to get into the game, but make no mistake, it's still a very complicated game system at least compared to a lot of other systems.

In terms of content I feel SR4 has a definitive edge, as the sourcebooks tended to be more clearly separated between rules and fiction; SR5 has some editing problems and can't seem to quite make up its mind in terms of what type of content goes into books. That's my subjective opinion, of course.

Overall, I actually prefer some of the more complex systems in SR4, especially the Matrix rules believe it or not, but the rest of the rule set from SR5 is really solid as long as you're willing to make some table decisions. As mentioned, SR5 has some editing issues so you'll have to interpret some rules in some cases, so as long as you go in expecting that you should be good.

If I had to choose between one or the other, I'd prefer to use SR5, personally. That being said, I GM an SR5 game with several pages worth of house rules, so I guess my actual preference would be a hybrid approach

[Jack_Spade]

I prefer 5th.

But 4th has a lot going for it:
- It is complete
- There are a lot more customization options and complexity
- There are arguably more options (play a drake or free spirit)

[DragginSPADE]

There are pros and cons to both, in my opinion.

SR4 definitely has a more fleshed out ruleset with significantly more details, rules, gear, and so on. The downside is that some of those rules are ineffective, complicated, or just downright broken.

SR5 on the other hand is still being expanded upon, so a lot of the depth of the previous edition(s) is currently missing. I also personally dislike some of the directions the writers took with 5th, specifically the way the Matrix got less scientific and more mystical and how tech in general has been treated with regards to interaction with magic. Mechanically speaking, though, SR5 is a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned; most of the rules are streamlined so it's easier to get into the game, but make no mistake, it's still a very complicated game system at least compared to a lot of other systems.

In terms of content I feel SR4 has a definitive edge, as the sourcebooks tended to be more clearly separated between rules and fiction; SR5 has some editing problems and can't seem to quite make up its mind in terms of what type of content goes into books. That's my subjective opinion, of course.

Overall, I actually prefer some of the more complex systems in SR4, especially the Matrix rules believe it or not, but the rest of the rule set from SR5 is really solid as long as you're willing to make some table decisions. As mentioned, SR5 has some editing issues so you'll have to interpret some rules in some cases, so as long as you go in expecting that you should be good.

If I had to choose between one or the other, I'd prefer to use SR5, personally. That being said, I GM an SR5 game with several pages worth of house rules, so I guess my actual preference would be a hybrid approach

Out of curiosity, what are some of the SR4 rules you consider to be broken or ineffective? 

And I understand what you mean about the separation of rules and fiction in SR5.  On my first couple reads I thought the game was horribly broken and missing a bunch of fundamentals.  Then later I found a lot of them buried in paragraphs that looked like fluff.  Still some stuff that looks incomplete, particularly in magic so that's why I'm asking how folks who've actually played the games felt they shook out. 

On a subject of particular interest to me, the ritual magic rules in SR5.  I like the concept of expanding their use in the game and putting in ritual only spells, but the way they're written... they either seem to be taking a previously innate magician ability and making you now spend a starting spell pick to get them (wards, watchers) or very vague and/or underpowered.  (Most other rituals.)  Has anybody used ritual magic in your games?  How did that go?

One thing I learned a long time ago is that how a game reads and how it plays can be two very different thing, and I'm very curious to hear what actual experiences have been like. 

[Jack_Spade]

Ritual magic is most often used by NPCs in my games. For PC use it's usually to time consuming (although the minion rituals are really neat)
If you have a group that builds for it or a single mage with the Greater Ritual Metamagic it can become a really effective tool.

And yes: Lack of consistent terminology and fluff-crunch mix up is the main problem this edition has. 

[Herr Brackhaus]

Out of curiosity, what are some of the SR4 rules you consider to be broken or ineffective?

Technomancer stealth in SR4 is broken beyond belief; threading in general can be extremely powerful, but technomancers threading high Level stealth are nigh undetectable by pretty much any node they choose to enter. Oh, and pornomancers (don't ask, but it's a thing...).

The Matrix in general, but not so much broken as it is complex. It's got a steep learning curve for everyone involved, and though it is easier than previous editions it is still harder than 5th (at least in terms of complexity; 5th still has it's share of issues with the Matrix...).

Summoning, which is just as broken in 5th unless the GM takes steps to address it (i.e. by using Edge for the spirits opposed test if of sufficient Force).

Chase combat, which again is also broken in SR5, and vehicle speeds in general.

All in all, there's a bunch of stuff that's mechanically unbalanced, and a few things that are just mechanically broken (i.e. barely works within the confines of the setting). But, and I think this is important enough for emphasis: nothing is so broken that it cannot be fixed with houserules. You just have to be willing to put in the effort is all, and that's the same across the board.

And I understand what you mean about the separation of rules and fiction in SR5.  On my first couple reads I thought the game was horribly broken and missing a bunch of fundamentals.  Then later I found a lot of them buried in paragraphs that looked like fluff.  Still some stuff that looks incomplete, particularly in magic so that's why I'm asking how folks who've actually played the games felt they shook out.

Yeah, Street Grimoire got a lukewarm reception for good reason. I think it is my least favourite book of SR5 so far, followed closely by Data Trails, because they were both poorly edited (i.e. had sections of fiction and rules interspersed) and had game mechanics that were not particularly well implemented). A cardinal sin as far as I'm concerned is the utter lack of a proper table of contents, especially so when mechanics and fiction isn't properly separated making it even more time consuming to cross reference. It's not all bad, though, and it's definitely getting better. Run & Gun, Run Faster, Hard Targets, and Rigger 5.0 were all steps up as far as I'm concerned, though they all have their odd rules and editing issues. Still, I very much enjoy 5th Edition for what it is, so I hope you won't get too disparaged by what I consider a mere annoyance as opposed to an actual problem.

On a subject of particular interest to me, the ritual magic rules in SR5.  I like the concept of expanding their use in the game and putting in ritual only spells, but the way they're written... they either seem to be taking a previously innate magician ability and making you now spend a starting spell pick to get them (wards, watchers) or very vague and/or underpowered.  (Most other rituals.)  Has anybody used ritual magic in your games?  How did that go?

We tried, but it's no good if you've only got two magicians, really. It definitely seems like ritual magic, like blood magic, is a tool best left up to the GM for flavor. The effort it takes compared to the returns just isn't worth it in an average game session, and ritual magic can be quite time consuming in terms of in-game time which is something the GM has to plan for.

One thing I learned a long time ago is that how a game reads and how it plays can be two very different thing, and I'm very curious to hear what actual experiences have been like. 

Unfortunately, where Ritual Magic is concerned you read it right

Still, as far as I'm concerned you can't really go wrong with either edition of the game, to wrap back around. SR5 plays a little smoother so I'd honestly go for the later edition, warts and all, and if you need any gear from previous editions it's almost all simple enough to convert. As mentioned, we've got a house rule document that is pages upon pages and some of that is gear conversions, though most of it is rules clarifications and the like. So, jump right in!

[Glyph]

SR5, unfortunately, has some crippling flaws.  First is that it is riddled with unfun nerfs and hindrances - higher background counts, more inescapable wireless combined with greater consequences for being hacked, security tally for deckers - constant penalties and things to worry about, rather than just being allowed to relax and play your character.  Secondly, and more importantly, the editing is horrendous at the line developer level.  Ill-thought out, vague, or contradictory rules and fluff, a lot of it apparently written by people with no clue as to how the Shadowrun universe works; cut-and-paste-from-SR4 bits with important parts missing; and botched rules snippets/misaligned tables.  And I agree that important rules are often buried in the fluff.

SR5 isn't even more available than the previous edition - a lot of books can only be found offered at exorbitant prices.  Despite my gripes about SR5, I am still getting the core books, since my SR interactions are basically online right now, and most people seem to have switched over to the new edition.  So I was actually a potential customer, ready to buy Chrome Flesh, but it was only offered by third-party sellers at the aforementioned exorbitant prices.  So when a used copy for about $25 suddenly popped up, I snatched it right up.  So Catalyst lost a sale, because I literally could not get a new copy (I'm just not a .pdf guy - I like hard copies).


So if it is just you and your friends, I would recommend SR4, which is not without its flaws, but has generally much clearer rules with errata, smoother gameplay, and more of a fun, less constrained feel.

[DragginSPADE]

Thanks for the responses so far everyone.  Particularly on the comments about the matrix... I never got too far into those rules  during my time and I've kinda skimmed over them again reading the new editions.   

So a couple more follow up questions.  My favorite flavor of Shadowrun has always been heavy on the magic.  So if you were considering only the core rule set (skills, combat, etc) and the magic and more or less disregarding vehicle combat and the matrix, would that change whether you prefer SR4 or 5?

As for the core combat rules themselves,  assuming a fairly basic set (pistols and maybe a SMG or two, close range but not point blank, cover available for smart runners, good but not stratospheric skills among those involved) does the combat lethality vary much between the systems?  How quickly does lethality change as you start scaling up equipment/skills in the editions? 

[Rosa]

In regards to the magic rules.....a bit of both editions actually.

The good that 5th ed. contributed to the magic rules in my opinion is mostly on the idea plane as many actual rules in 5th ed. have issues, but alot can be fixed with house rules.
- I like the reagents use
- i like the expanded ritual magic
- i like the idea of preparations, but house ruling is needed to make them viable
- The metamagical schools is another fine Development
- I really like that indirect combat spells are now actually something you use, since drain isn't insane anymore
- I think direct combat spells needed to be nerfed as they did, but maybe not so much as they actually did.

With 4th. ed. you also have some good rules that are better than what 5th ed. supplied
- Artificing rules are way better in 4th ed.
- 4th. ed. actually have spell creation rules, so use those but you need to calculate a drain code for indirect combat spells
- Quick resolution rules for astral quests actually exist

So in essence a combination of rules from 5th and 4th editions, eventhough it is annoying that 5th edition has so many issues, fortunately translating rules from 4th to 5th isn't that complicated.

[Herr Brackhaus]

Rosa
For what it's worth, we actually tried messing around with Direct Combat Spells at our table to make them more attractive. Unfortunately, even relatively minor tweaks quickly made them very powerful again.

We first tried upping the DV to Net Hits + (Force/2), rounded down. So a Force 6 spell could result in as much as 9DV, resisted purely by Body or Willpower. However, This meant that the magician could overcast a Force 8 Stunbolt for up to 12DV, effectively knocking out pretty much any NPC we were playing at the time, for a relatively moderate 5 Drain DV (even less if, as our Magician quickly realized, a fetish was used).

We then made it a flat +2 DV and the same kind of problem was present; it still only took 2 spells at relatively moderate force to knock out pretty much any opponent with Force 6 spells potentially dealing 8 DV.

Ultimately, we removed all of our changes in favour of the then-newly released Witness My Hate quality from Run Faster (of all places...), which gives a magician the option to trade +2DV for a +2 drain value. I feel this gives the proper balance of risk vs reward; got a cybered up troll bearing down on you with a chainsaw? Break out the stunbolt at high Force and knock him on his ass, but risk bloodying your own nose in the process. A Force 10 Stunbolt would be 9 Drain, but could deal up to 12DV, which should be enough to take out most low-willpower opponents, but at the risk of giving the spellcaster a serious headache.

Of course, you're highly dependent on a lot of net hits with direct combat spells, and counterspelling can throw a real wrench in the works for magicians relying to heavily on such spells.

[Rosa]

I agree that it seems like it's either too much or too Little with the direct combat spells. The Witness my hate option seems ok though. Ofc. i can "just" use some reagents and transform my force 1 manabolt into a force 15 manabolt if i choose to, or just an edge point to remove the limits on the spellcasting test, so plenty of ways to fire off that killer manabolt when you need it.

[DragginSPADE]

That's one thing that confused me in SR5... why they nerfed direct damage spells.  If they were powerful in SR4 that wasn't anything NEW.  Direct damage combat spells have been deadly in SR since SR1.

I mean, this is Shadowrun... the sun rises in the east, the sky is a pollution grey color, politicians are corrupt (moreso than the real world) and direct damage spells are deadly. 

To me, manabolts suddenly becoming weak is a bigger paradigm change than the matrix protocols changing yet again.  There should be a boatload of researchers around the world frantically scrambling to figure out why the fundamentals of magic changed so suddenly in 2075.

[Herr Brackhaus]

To be fair, direct damage spells were not just deadly, they were ridiculously deadly.

And to my mind, a far greater change was the sudden disappearance of grounding. No longer could magicians astrally project and send a fireball up your ass from the relative safety of his command bunker.

I think Direct combat spells needed a nerf, badly, and they got it.

[DragginSPADE]

To be fair, direct damage spells were not just deadly, they were ridiculously deadly.

And to my mind, a far greater change was the sudden disappearance of grounding. No longer could magicians astrally project and send a fireball up your ass from the relative safety of his command bunker.

Fair enough.  I wonder how much of this being a problem is from the removal of the Spell Pool.  In SR3 mana bolts were deadly... when the casting was enhanced with spell pool dice.  But if the magician did that he didn't have much to defend with against incoming spells until his next turn.  In SR4-5 you can cast at full effect and still have all your Counterspelling dice afterwards.

As for shifts in the manasphere, yup, grounding vanishing was interesting.  I like how they talked about it in Shadowrun 2050.  But no mention of how casting spells while Astrally Projecting used to cause physical drain regardless, while now apparently you can cast away on the astral with no problems.  Makes me wonder why mages bother to learn Astral Combat.   

[Herr Brackhaus]

Yeah, Astral Combat is just horribly unbalanced in favour of everything except other magicians. I don't think we've had it come up once at our table, because we all kind of looked at it and went "Whut? Screw that..."