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.
This is on the level of “does that hurt? Then don’t do that” advice from doctors. Yes, it’s correct, but in the context of the discussion it misses the point. This is a post about Shadowrun and it’s mechanics, so I am voicing my opinion on Shadowrun’s mechanics. I know I can just not play with Shadowrun rules. I don’t play with Shadowrun rules daily. But if that was a valid response to my opinion there wouldn’t be any reason to discuss the rules of Shadowrun ever. You either like it or you play something else.
And yes, “like it or play something else” is a valid response to an opinion, but for people out there who haven’t played Shadowrun, it’s still worth voicing why something is disliked so that they can form their opinion without having to drop time and effort getting a session together just to give the rules a test-drive.
So coming to a discussion about the quality of the rules of a system and the opinions people have on said rules and saying “well just don’t use the rules then” is dismissive and pointless. It almost reads as shutting down the opinions of others, even.
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.
I know perfectly what it is I’m upset about; nothing.
I attempted to engage in a basic discussion on a public forum. I’m sorry if that offended you somehow, but I also don’t understand why you’re here in that case.
I never took anything as an attack.
You’re injecting emotion and intent into my statements. That’s not healthy or productive.
So I’ll summarize it all one last time;
I personally believe that what system you claim to be running should be primarily centered around the ruleset and not the setting. We disagree on that matter and that’s okay. But during that discussion you clarified your intent when making the original statement, and I stepped back to address that as well; I consider your response, both the original one and this one right here, to be unproductive and dismissive when it comes to the discussion of Shadowrun’s ruleset.
![Mechanics Included [Shadowrun]](https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/pictrs/image/f32b5d22-7747-4ddd-ba48-2198018b16b5.webp){kind=link}
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?
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.
This is on the level of “does that hurt? Then don’t do that” advice from doctors. Yes, it’s correct, but in the context of the discussion it misses the point. This is a post about Shadowrun and it’s mechanics, so I am voicing my opinion on Shadowrun’s mechanics. I know I can just not play with Shadowrun rules. I don’t play with Shadowrun rules daily. But if that was a valid response to my opinion there wouldn’t be any reason to discuss the rules of Shadowrun ever. You either like it or you play something else.
And yes, “like it or play something else” is a valid response to an opinion, but for people out there who haven’t played Shadowrun, it’s still worth voicing why something is disliked so that they can form their opinion without having to drop time and effort getting a session together just to give the rules a test-drive.
So coming to a discussion about the quality of the rules of a system and the opinions people have on said rules and saying “well just don’t use the rules then” is dismissive and pointless. It almost reads as shutting down the opinions of others, even.
See, the problem here is that you’re choosing to take this…
… 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.
I know perfectly what it is I’m upset about; nothing.
I attempted to engage in a basic discussion on a public forum. I’m sorry if that offended you somehow, but I also don’t understand why you’re here in that case.
I never took anything as an attack.
You’re injecting emotion and intent into my statements. That’s not healthy or productive.
So I’ll summarize it all one last time; I personally believe that what system you claim to be running should be primarily centered around the ruleset and not the setting. We disagree on that matter and that’s okay. But during that discussion you clarified your intent when making the original statement, and I stepped back to address that as well; I consider your response, both the original one and this one right here, to be unproductive and dismissive when it comes to the discussion of Shadowrun’s ruleset.