See, the problem here is that you’re choosing to take this…

So, I regularly run Shadowrun as a “My first RPG” and as a “Wait, D&D isn’t the only game?”, but I do it by replacing the mechanics entirely.

… as a personal attack. That was my original reply. Just sharing my experiences of play. Not even intended for you specifically; this is an open discussion forum. I offered an experience and some suggestions that other people might find useful.

You decided that this counts as me attacking you for your choices about how to play games. That happened entirely in your head.

And to make matters worse, rather than clearly stating that objection, even if it was to an imagined insult, you instead responded with an argument about whether or not we’re allowed to say that we’re “running” a game if we’ve swapped out the system. Which is completely different from the objection you’re raising now. And that’s not the first time this has happened in this discussion. I’ve been politely trying to avoid bringing it up, but multiple times now you’ve basically swapped out or drastically re-framed your entire argument. None of your last post is even directly responsive in any way to my last. It’s just a new angle of attack fresh out of the blue.

To be honest, I don’t think you actually know what it is you’re upset about. While I’m sure I could accuse you of moving goalposts or engaging in other bad faith tactics, I think that’s what actually happening here is that you know you’re upset, and you’re unconsciously doing your best to come up with reasons why. That’s not to say that all of those reasons are untrue, but it’s what tends to happen when we feel an emotional response to something that we haven’t fully reasoned out on a conscious level.

And for that reason I’m going to step away from this discussion. Because while I feel perfectly happy defending my argument, I don’t think you’re happy making whatever argument it is that you’re actually trying to make.

when I say “Shadowrun is not an entry-level TTRPG”, I am referring to the ruleset and not the setting.

Yes. I know. That would be why I recommended replacing the rules and not the setting. Sort of feels like I wouldn’t have done that if I thought your issue was with the setting, right?

I’m of the opinion that communicating the ruleset you’re running is important

And yet, earlier in this exact conversation, I said; “obviously, if I was advertising a public game at an LGS, I would state up front that I’m not intending to use the Shadowrun system. I wouldn’t want people to be caught off guard by that. And even when I run these games privately, I still tell people ahead of time that I won’t be using any of the stock mechanics.”

So I’m not really clear on why you think that was an issue.

What it seems you did was take me saying “Shadowrun is not an entry-level TTRPG” and append “setting” to that, which is ironic given this post.

I applaud your attempt at an Uno Reverso here, but if you take a few minutes to think about this, your gotcha really doesn’t work. If I was responding to the imagined claim that Shadowrun is a bad setting for new players then the last thing I would do would be to suggest keeping the setting and losing the system, right? Quite the opposite, in fact.

What I actually did is respond to the claim that “Shadowrun is not an entry-level TTRPG” (which I read as clearly intended to mean the total package of the rules and the setting) by simply pointing out that you can jettison one and keep the other, and that when you do it actually becomes a great entry level game.

The problem here keeps coming back to the fact that you have this weird originalist dogma about roleplaying games where replacing systems is in some way sacrosanct. So when I pointed out that Shadowrun works great without it’s legacy of clunky systems, that statement caused some kind of divide by zero error that you could only read as “The rules as fine if you change all the rules” because the notion of separating a system from it’s setting seems to be utterly verboten for you.

By your own admission you feel that “It’s the rules that matter in the context of statements like these, not the setting.”

Why? I’m sorry, but that’s a rule that you made up in your head, not something that’s actually inherent to the medium. You’re the one who lives in a world where it’s more important to say “I’m running D&D” than it is to say “I’m running Eberron.” When I think of my adventures in Eberron, I think of my Warforged archaeologist fist-fighting dinosaur riding Halflings on top of a speeding train. I could not, for the life of me, tell you exactly what feats and class features I was using to do it.

I’ve literally never said the words “I’m running D&D” in my entire life. I’ve never found it more important to specify a system than to specify a setting. “I’m running D&D” is as meaningful a statement as “I’m running GURPS”. OK. So what? Why do I care. Tell me “I’m running Illuminati University” and now I’m excited. Leading with a system is like if I asked you what you thought of a movie you just watched, and the only thing you told me is what cameras it was filmed on.

Whether I’m playing or running, I’m here to tell a story. A story needs a world. The mechanics are completely optional. I honestly don’t really care if my character does or does not have a base attack bonus. What I want to think about is why my Warforged archaeologist wears a hat, because that’s interesting.

I get that this is not a universal way of thinking about RPGs. For a lot of people they’re a set of mechanics to operate and master in the same way that you learn to play something like Magic: The Gathering, where the setting is a backdrop and the cards can be reskinned and re-themed without changing anything about how they play. But I’m gonna be honest, I think it’s genuinely sad to see people approach roleplaying that way. It’s a hobby with so much boundless room for imagination. To reduce that to mechanics first and foremost is an unspeakably dull way of thinking in my opinion.

You’re running a system’s setting with a different system and calling it “the same system”.

But I’m not.

At absolutely no point did I say it was the same system. At absolutely no point did I say “I’m running the Shadowrun system.” My exact words were “I run Shadowrun.” You added “system” entirely in your own head.

Yes, obviously, if I was advertising a public game at an LGS, I would state up front that I’m not intending to use the Shadowrun system. I wouldn’t want people to be caught off guard by that. And even when I run these games privately, I still tell people ahead of time that I won’t be using any of the stock mechanics. Even for players who’ve never played Shadowrun, I still put that information out there so that they don’t wander into another Shadowrun game expecting the same experience.

But the thing you objected to was me saying “I run Shadowrun.” And you immediately assumed I included the word “system” and launched your entire objection on the basis of that.

And this is where I think we have fundamentally different philosophies about what roleplaying is, as a hobby. Because when I say “Shadowrun” I mean a fascinating world of alt-history near future cyberpunk mixed with Tolkien-esque fantasy that really shouldn’t work, but somehow manages to actually use the disparate elements to reinforce one another, turning magic and monsters into new layers on cyberpunk’s existing themes.

And when you say “Shadowrun” you apparently mean “One or more entries in a very specific list of different d6 dice-pool based systems”.

Yes, obviously if someone said they’re running D&D and then it turned out they were running Dungeon World, I’d be kind of perplexed. But that’s because D&D itself isn’t a setting, it’s a system. On the other hand, if someone said they were running Eberron, and then it turned out they were running it in the Gumshoe system, I’d be fucking psyched. That would be such an awesome way to explore that particular world. Imagine how cool it would be take the 1920s vibes and shades of cosmic horror and turn them into an investigative mystery story, without all the combat heavy D&D mechanics getting in the way.

In the case of Shadowrun, yes, it is both a world and a system. But of those two things, the world is far more important. The system only exists as a framework through which to explore that world. Shadowrun as a world can exist in any system (that doesn’t mean it will feel the same in any system, but it can exist), as evidenced by the fact that its official systems have taken so many different forms over the years. But the Shadowrun system without the Shadowrun world is nothing. It’s meaningless. A useless appendage lacking the story that gives it form.

This is not to say that changing the system will not change the world in certain ways. Systems shape the rules of a world. They are instrumental in defining many elements of tone and genre. But lots of things change the feel of a world, first among them being the GM. Even if you and I both run Shadowrun using the same edition, with scrupulous attention to exact implementation of the rules as written, we won’t be running the same Shadowrun. We’re each going to have our own ideas about how that world operates, about what is and isn’t possible, or normal. We’re going to describe characters in different ways, play out interactions in different ways, put emphasis on different things. There is no pure, unadulterated version of a setting in roleplaying. So why get so hung up about adherence to specifics of the mechanics, when everything else is already up for grabs?

That seems to be entirely missing the point of RPGs, to my mind. What exactly are the limits of this logic? If I use house rules, am I “not running Shadowrun”? What about if I use an older system? Shadowrun has 6 editions, some of them very different from each other, plus a complete alternate rules set. Anarchy is at least as different from 6E as anything I’m doing with it, so why does Anarchy get to be canonically Shadowrun, but my game doesn’t, even though neither of them are using anything like the mainline rules?

So, I regularly run Shadowrun as a “My first RPG” and as a “Wait, D&D isn’t the only game?”, but I do it by replacing the mechanics entirely.

If you want something official, Shadowrun Anarchy is actually pretty good. Otherwise, look at The Sprawl, or Runners in The Dark (A Blades in the Dark hack). And I guess at some point I’ll get around to actually releasing the custom system I’m using to run it for my current games.

You are gonna love Deadlock.

I’m a league refugee that switched to Deadlock. My god it is so much better. Both the game and the community.

Is this really an issue?

Technically, it’s always been possible to do this with human programmers. I could read the code to Jellyfin, write out a detailed spec, hand that to a software engineer and have them recreate it. Or I could just come up with the same app myself from first principles. In most cases it’s not really that big of a difference when you get down to it.

Arguably, that’s what Emby did to Plex, or what Kodi did to MythTV. How much was inspiration and how much was copying? And does anyone actually care?

At the end of the day, patches and updates to the original won’t work with your clean room implementation, so it’s now on you to maintain this new codebase. And you still have to test it, work the bugs out, solve all the problems, and you can’t just refer back to the original code for solutions because the whole point is that your code still needs to be meaningfully different. You haven’t really removed any of the work of creating a piece of software. If you ended up borrowing certain details of implementation - some clever solutions and novel ideas - from your access to the nuts and bolts details of the original, that’s just part of how open source works.

Clean room implementations are much more of a firmware issue than a software one.

It doesn’t. If you’re doing anything in a web browser you’re going to need that much RAM for a reasonable experience no matter what DE you’re using. Ubuntu are just trying to set more realistic expectations.

They’re basically saying “Our software doesn’t need more RAM, but most of what you run on it does, so this is a more realistic expectation for what will make for a good experience.”

This $1tn valuation is based almost entirely on what they think Grok is worth. Whether or not markets agree will be a big test of how much gas is left in the AI tank.

A little of both. I think it’s good for software to be customizable, but layering on plugins often tends to lead to instability or other issues, so the ideal for me is where the program does 90% or more of what I want out of the box, and plugins fill the gaps.

Projected by a company that makes RAM and wants to juice their stock price.

‘Power Kill’ by John Tynes

It’s a meta RPG. Basically, after you wrap your session of D&D, where the players raided a dungeon, killed all the kobolds and hauled up some loot, you start your session of Power Kill.

The players, as their new Power Kill identities, are gathered together in a group therapy session. There the DM, as the counsellor, walks them through the horrific series of crimes that resulted in their being institutionalized; how they - apparently in a delusional fugue state - entered an apartment building and moved from room to room slaughtering the occupants and looting any valuables they could find before leaving and attempting to sell most of their haul at a nearby pawn shop.

But don’t worry… We’re here to make you better.

Note: This also works with a tonne of other games; VtM, Cyberpunk Red, any superhero game, Call of Cthulhu, Unknown Armies… It’s completely system agnostic, but provides wildly different experiences depending on what you bolt it onto.

It’s cost cutting. They’re burning cash faster than they can raise it.

Micron make RAM. I don’t think we should give any more credence to their claims than we do to Elon’s. Their goal here is to pump their share price, nothing more.

If I remember right, wasn’t shutting down Sora one of Ed’s signs of the apocalypse?

deleted by creator

100% actual canon truth.