[Kincaid]

Actually, it assumes that, lacking an in game definition like augmentation has, enhancements use the normal real world definition. an increase or improvement in quality, value, or extent.

Do drugs increase the value of your reaction/initiative? If so, they are an enhancement.

Collaborative writing is a pain. That's no reason for editors not to clean things up afterward. SR could really do well with setting out a standardized list of terms like Pathfinder has done. It would let the lax editing get by more easily.

You are missing the part on pages 229 and 230 where enhancements and bonuses are clearly mentioned as separate things.  The case that drugs are bonuses, and not enhancements, is equally valid, which is to say, entirely unsupported.

And I'm entirely sympathetic to the pains of collaborative writing--it's a very hard thing to get right.  I'm sure folks were under the gun to get the book out on a certain date, but it really feels like it needed one more go 'round with the editors.

[jim1701]

A glossary in the back would've been really nice.   

[WellsIDidIt]

You are missing the part on pages 229 and 230 where enhancements and bonuses are clearly mentioned as separate things.  The case that drugs are bonuses, and not enhancements, is equally valid, which is to say, entirely unsupported.

Not missing it, just looking at the whole picture. I would propose that something internal (like a quality) wouldn't be an enhancement, but would be a bonus. Something external would be an enhancement. Just looking at the way the term is generally used. Drugs grant bonuses, but they are not in and of themselves bonuses.

[Kincaid]

You are missing the part on pages 229 and 230 where enhancements and bonuses are clearly mentioned as separate things.  The case that drugs are bonuses, and not enhancements, is equally valid, which is to say, entirely unsupported.

Not missing it, just looking at the whole picture. I would propose that something internal (like a quality) wouldn't be an enhancement, but would be a bonus. Something external would be an enhancement. Just looking at the way the term is generally used. Drugs grant bonuses, but they are not in and of themselves bonuses.

Which is a perfectly fine interpretation, but it's just that--an interpretation.  It's not RAW.

[RHat]

See, this is why a rules dictionary is critical.  It would be really handy to have for players, but I can't imagine trying to keep all the terminology straight on the writer's side is at all easy without one.

[Kincaid]

See, this is why a rules dictionary is critical.  It would be really handy to have for players, but I can't imagine trying to keep all the terminology straight on the writer's side is at all easy without one.

Yeah, this is really my point.  The editor(s) should have established a shared lexicon at an early stage in the process.  It'd be great to see something like a rules dictionary show up in the Runners Companion v5.0.

[WellsIDidIt]

It would be almost impossible to do at this point. The key to being useful for defined terms in a game is to define them from the get go and design the rules from the ground up with the defined terms in mind. If they were to try and start now, after the core rules are released, it would likely just add to the issue instead of fix it.

We can always cross our fingers for sixth edition though.

[JD]

We can always cross our fingers for sixth edition though.

"Shadowrun: Fingers crossed since 1989"

[Namikaze]

It would be almost impossible to do at this point. The key to being useful for defined terms in a game is to define them from the get go and design the rules from the ground up with the defined terms in mind. If they were to try and start now, after the core rules are released, it would likely just add to the issue instead of fix it.

We can always cross our fingers for sixth edition though.

It would be extremely difficult to do.  But they're early enough that they'd only need to errata two books to make it happen.  I'm not saying it will, but I'm crossing my fingers for sooner than 6th edition.

[WellsIDidIt]

It's not about the number of books, when it comes to collaborative projects, its about the number of writers. Every writer has a different style, uses words differently to mean the same things, different things, similar but not same things, etc. That's why most companies set up the standard terms before they start work on a project. Add in the Shadowrun custom of copy/paste from older editions (which had no standardized definitions) and in just compounds the issue since they didn't start with standard terms.

Honestly, it would probably be easier, faster, and cheaper to create standard terms and rewrite the book than try to errata it to fit to a newly created set of terms. That would take a good editor though (to be cheaper at least).

[Kincaid]

It's not about the number of books, when it comes to collaborative projects, its about the number of writers. Every writer has a different style, uses words differently to mean the same things, different things, similar but not same things, etc. That's why most companies set up the standard terms before they start work on a project. Add in the Shadowrun custom of copy/paste from older editions (which had no standardized definitions) and in just compounds the issue since they didn't start with standard terms.

Honestly, it would probably be easier, faster, and cheaper to create standard terms and rewrite the book than try to errata it to fit to a newly created set of terms. That would take a good editor though (to be cheaper at least).

This is 100% correct.  My job touches on scholarly communication and it (almost) all boils down to the editor(s).

This is also why I largely think RAW arguments about Shadowrun are pointless.  Without any internal consistency, there's really no point to trying to figure out RAW since the AW part is so screwed up.  I think the goal ought to be "plausible/agreeable interpretation." 

[Cronstintein]

I think RAW arguments tend to make more sense when you're worried about missions games.  Home games are easily tailored to taste so RAW is irrelevant and really, so is RAI.

[Michael Chandra]

Yes, but RAI still matters to those who don't want to break their head (and games) trying to find the right houserules, since RAI has a significant impact of balance that one should only steer away from after a well-informed decision.

[WellsIDidIt]

RAW is quite often not RAI without consistency, but debating interpretations is pretty much the definition of a futile effort. For an example, look at how many "plausible" interpretation there are of the Bible. Roughly 41,000 denominations of Christianity from one text because they all interpret differently.

Of course, we have it a bit easier. The authors of the rules may actually tell us the intent, but that seems to come about fairly slowly with Catalyst. I argue RAW mostly because I run missions at a local store. Even if RAW isn't the intent, players should be able to play with the same rules between missions GMs whether the GM pays attention to forums or not.

I am occasionally envious of Pathfinder players with how constant and quick the support is on their forums from the main devs.

[Kincaid]

Yeah, Missions is the reason I argue rules as well--open play is both a blessing a curse.