(It may be a spambot necro, but the discussion interests me anyways)
One of the biggest annoyances in 5e was learning and finding the actual rules. In 6e, this isn't as bad in places, but it's hard to tell what's fluff and what's an actual rule. And then, should the fluff be part of how you interpret RAI?
There are places that do this well. Take the "Hacking the Matrix" section, for example (p. 178). The first paragraph is fluff/exposition, and the first sentence introduces this well. The next paragraph goes into the technicalities, and the first sentence of this paragraph introduces this as well, and this paragraph is structured in a logical order.
Someone skimming this section just to look for the rule would skip over the first paragraph, and then see that introduction sentence in paragraph 2 indicating to them where they should look for the rule. This seems like writing fundamentals, but it gets messed up easily.
Compare this to the section on traditions (p. 127 - 128). Again, someone skimming through this is going to skip over paragraphs. They'll hone in on the bolded word "tradition," but move on once they realize it's fluff. They have to get to the last paragraph to get to the rule on tradition attribute. This is still easier to find than a lot of rules in 5e, but it takes longer than the matrix section. A better way to handle this would be a sub-heading of "tradition attribute" with the rules information, separating it from the fluff. Someone looking for the rule on tradition attributes would not need to skim through the entire tradition section to find it. However, they will still find it easily enough.
A section that does not do this well is the "cold" damage type (p. 110). It opens with this:
No one likes being cold. The shakes, chattering teeth, hypothermia, and tissue damage are just a few reasons your life will be harder after you get hit by a cold-based attack.
It goes into the mechanics immediately after. There are two things I don't like about this:
1. This fluff is both redundant, and contradicts the rule. Nothing in the rule talks about tissue damage, hypothermia, or any of those other effects. The rule inflicts the chilled status, which ties fluff to the rule in a much better way
"When you are truly, damagingly cold, it seeps into your bones and won’t let go, and you can’t move as smoothly and nimbly as you would like." This provides the rationale behind why being cold affects all dice pools.
Now, a reasonable person will understand that since there aren't any mechanics for hypothermia/tissue damage, then these are not actually applied. However, this is the RAW. If I interpret it exactly as it is written, then I might say that anyone hit with a cold-based attack will get hypothermia and tissue damage. Hypothermia kills people if it's left untreated. Should I have the character take ongoing damage if they don't receive medical attention? Should they be required to spend hours under blankets by a heat source to remove the effect?
This seems ridiculous, but in another thread we were trying to interpret the fluff on multiple attacks to determine which weapons could make multiple attacks, how many weapons you needed, etc. because the text didn't cover it. There's less room for interpretation here, of course.
2. It breaks the pattern of the passage. Both "chemical" and "fire" talk about the "qualitative" effects, but they aren't fluffy. Fire describes that you and things around you may light on fire: this ties directly to the game mechanic. Chemical describes how it sticks around: this also ties directly to the game mechanic.
I know I keep mentioning skimming through all this lovely fluff. I enjoy the fluff, but it gets in the way when you have a specific goal in mind (Learn the rules, look up a rule, etc.) At times, it feels like the author is holding the rule hostage until you finish reading their prose on the setting of the game. It's not like this in all sections, but it's in enough sections to irritate me.
