Otori wrote:Cyberpunk and Shadowrun, both table-top RPG. I preferred Shadowrun, as it was a bit more polished. Cyberpunk tended to come across as written by a bored college geek that decided the 4th hit of acid was ok for 1 day. But they were both pretty nice

Quite correct that they were both tabletop RPG's, but I had kinda the opposite feelings, hehe. Shadowrun seemed a bit on the obsessive-compulsive side, like the writers weren't sure what sort of game they were trying to make, and it ended up leaving a LOT of holes in the game mechanics in the earlier versions (which is around the time that I was playing it regularly, never really got the chance to try the later "fixed" versions).
I later made the switch (and forced my players to make the switch...ah the power of GM, hehe) to Cyberpunk RPG and felt it was a lot smoother, game mechanics just seemed to roll together for me. Plus I was glad I no longer had to deal with elves and dwarves and orcs in a future-setting. Turning D&D into a futuristic game was the only major issue I had with Shadowrun, it just felt all wrong.
Okay, scratch that last part: the primary issue I had with Shadowrun was the damn matrix (or was it grid? I can never remember which term they used). Like 20 pages of convoluted rules that led to a 5-second cyberdeck run taking 3 hours to play out on the table. Hated that. It was a lot easier to play deck runs out in my own way in Cyberpunk.
