[Harlequins_Back]

My point is that this isn't a competition. I gave the game a 5/5 and I stand by that claim. I have not insulted anyone. I have stated that I feel the other reviewers have less reviewed the game as much as look for reasons to say why they dislike it rather than admitting that they just wanted something closer to the older shadowrun. That's perfectly valid. But their critiques are not. They don't match with the physical product, in my opinion.

There are not nearly as many issues with the system as are claimed. I have, I feel, successfully refuted all the system claims put forward on these forums. The layout is not a problem either, and I have shown why.

All of the other reviews-- myself included-- gave the game a passing score in all areas. Not one person has stated that this is a poor-quality product-- in fact, I think the writing quality in certain areas is beyond excellent.

The layout, however, is a problem, and has been noted on by far more people than just myself. You are basing your entire decision on a single playtest session with completely fresh players, while mine were based on multiple sessions with a mix of veteran gamers and complete newcomers-- you have a valid perspective, but not always a complete one.

However, going off my review, I'll be glad to point out a few of the layout issues, in character creation alone:

• There is no overview, in either a sidebar or summary format. You need to read the entire chapter front to back before you can begin.
• Edges and flaws are stuck in the middle of the chapter, taking up eight pages and breaking the flow. They deserve their own section, at the end of the chapter.
• As far as they go, you are also asked to choose edges and flaws well before those concepts are introduced. For example, if you want to play a mage, you need to pick the "magician" quality-- but the example in the book was just talking about starting allocations. So, you need to quickly flip back to the appropriate section, read and select between the options, and then flip back to the examples.
• Also, in that same section, you are told that your starting Magic rating is limited by your Initiation grade, but no mention is made of what initiation is, or any page references listed. You need to either be familiar with initiation, or read through the entire Magic chapter to learn that this is a limit for future advancement.
• Character creation seems simple enough, but once you start listing all the arbitrary limits, it becomes much more complex. Without looking at the book, can you tell me all of the attribute restrictions for a starting unaugmented human? Let alone a troll, dwarf, or elf? What about the skill limits-- can you repeat those without looking?
• There is no listing of adept powers anywhere in the chapter, even as an overview. If you want an adept, you need to flip back to the magic chapter to make your selections, then go back once again.

All of these contributed to the issues I had-- and many others I have spoken to-- with nSR character creation. Bear in mind, it took us almost four hours to complete characters for the whole party, and this was with multiple hardcopies and pdfs.

You claim your opinions are grounded in the actual product - but I've already shown a better knowledge of the layout and location of rules than you have managed to.

You have me confused with someone else. In point of fact, I mentioned that your reading of the average matrix test was incorrect-- it is program+skill+modifiers, not attribute as you previously mentioned. I was also the one who pointed out that it is on pages 135-138 that we have 29 combat actions listed; but we have 27 page references, leaving an average of two actual rules in that whole section--I believe this should be an adequate demonstration that I am basing my critique off the actual text, wouldn't you say?

I have gone into very clear detail about the system to present what makes it streamlined and simple. I have successfully refuted all your claims to the contrary regarding both the Wireless and Ranged. So much so that you had to resort to semantics to try and counter my argument.

You definitely have me mixed up with someone else. I have made no claims about wireless at all, and my claims about Ranged are that the array of choices can be overwhelming. Which is, indeed, true-- can you, off the top of your head, calculate the dice pool modifiers for someone firing full-auto using an Ares Alpha, with laser sight, at 65 meters, in light rain and partial lighting conditions? There is a balance between too complicated and not complicated enough, and Shadowrun-- of any edition, lest you think I am pining for the "good ol' days" of SR3-- has never been very good at finding that point.

My further claims are that Astral and Matrix combat are so sparse as to nearly be useless-- Matrix combat is given approximately three-fourths of a column; astral combat recieves two paragraphs. In Matrix combat, the only availiable maneuvers are attack and full-defense; no actions are listed anywhere for astral combat. So, we have hit the other extreme-- we are now down to the: "Uh, I try and hit him again" type of combat.

I say reasonably because I won't deny my biases. I had a hugely successful playtest of the game and that was central in my final scoring. The point is that I ran a playtest with fresh players, only myself having read the book once that same day, with no preparation or planning - and it was a roaring success mechanically and playwise.

As far as I'm concerned any game that pulls that off is going to rank highly straight away. The quality of the writing and the layout helped keep the score high, and so when I finally sat down and considered all the elements and the fact that I had absolutely nothing negative to say about the game other than some of the art wasn't that great and some of the fiction was a bit dull I felt that as a game as well as a product it earned a 5/5.

I am very glad for you. In my case, I had a hugely disasterous playtest with eager players, with myself having read over the book multiple times and with extensive preparation and planning-- I have never before in my life lost the flow of a game to something on cable. The best thing my players had to say was: "Hey, this is just like nWoD!"-- which I felt to be highly insufficient. Personally, I felt that the quality of the rules writing, and some of the improvements, were worth scoring the product much higher than that playtest would have indicated.

Except for the fiction, I do agree with you that the writing quality is absolutely superb-- and were it not for the fact that superb writing is rapidly becoming the industry standard, it would have counted for a great deal more. nSR has some very good points to it, but it also has significant flaws as well-- the base is solid, but the execution still needs work. There is nothing unsalvageable or astoundlingly horrific about nSR; however, there is decidedly a lot of room for improvement in the mechanical, layout, and game world concepts.