this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2026
61 points (89.6% liked)
RPGMemes
15998 readers
15 users here now
Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think at this point I need to ask you to take a step back and remember where this conversation started.
I opened by saying that Shadowrun is not an entry-level system because the rules are hard to understand. 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 never meant to imply that the setting was hard to understand. It's the rules that were the problem, and I apologize if that wasn't clear enough. But from my perspective, I said "The rules are hard for a new player to understand" and - again, from my perspective - your response was more or less "The rules are fine if you change all the rules". So you can imagine why I was blunt in my responses. This whole thing has been in the context of the rules system from the start, so yes, I am focused on the rules at the moment.
But I do stand by the fact that Shadowrun's setting with different rules is not "running Shadowrun" the same way running a D&D5e ruleset in a modern setting is still "Running 5e". It's the rules that matter in the context of statements like these, not the setting. You don't say "I'm running Forgotten Realms" You say "I'm running D&D." Sure, sometimes you specify modules but those modules are known to exist in a specific system so saying "I'm running Rime of the Frostmaiden 5e" is redundant. What you're doing is "Running [system] with Shadowrun's setting" or perhaps "Running Shadowrun's setting with another system." The distinction is still important, and anyone who reads "I'm running Shadowrun but I changed all the rules" will likely interpret that in their heads to mean "Shadowrun['s setting] with different rules" anyway.
Or TL:DR; you "Run" rulesets, and your campaign takes place in a setting.
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.
Let me clarify; there's nothing wrong with mixing and matching settings and rulesets. But I wouldn't say I'm running Shadowrun if I'm just running a D&D5e ruleset in a Shadowrun setting.
I think at this point we have to agree to disagree, because we clearly have different ways of looking at this. I'm of the opinion that communicating the ruleset you're running is important because if I go to a D&D5e game with a PF3e character, nobody is going to enjoy that. Specifying the setting is important too, but the rules aren't an unimportant thing you don't need to specify.
Regardless, when I say "Shadowrun is not an entry-level TTRPG", I am referring to the ruleset and not the setting. There is nothing wrong with the setting. I guess you'd parse it better if I said that the Shadowrun ruleset isn't an entry-level ruleset?
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.